To: J3 12-117r1 From: Malcolm Cohen/Robert Corbett Subject: Interp - which part becomes undefined? Date: 2012 February 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: F08/0069 TITLE: Which part of an effective argument becomes undefined? KEYWORDS: INTENT(OUT), extended type DEFECT TYPE: Erratum STATUS: J3 consideration in progress QUESTION: The last sentence of paragraph 17 of Clause 12.5.2.4 [294:42-295:2] states If the dummy argument is not polymorphic and the type of the effective argument is an extension of the type of the dummy argument, only the part of the effective argument that is of the same type as the dummy argument becomes undefined. The effective argument might have several parts that are of the same type as the dummy argument. Should the sentence say that only the ancestor component of the effective argument that has the same type as the dummy argument becomes undefined? A possible edit is to replace the last sentence of paragraph 17 of Clause 12.5.2.4 with If the dummy argument is not polymorphic and the type of the dummy argument is the type of an ancestor component (4.5.7.2) of the effective argument, only that component of the effective argument becomes undefined. ANSWER: A nonpolymorphic dummy argument should not be able to be argument associated with an effective argument that has a different dynamic type. That mistake was corrected by interpretation F08/0068. The quoted text from the standard is therefore a mistake; an edit is supplied to correct it. EDITS to 10-007r1: [294:40] 12.5.2.4p17, after "has INTENT (OUT)," change "the actual argument" to "the effective argument". {It is the effective argument that we intended to become undefined, not the whole actual argument in the case of polymorphism.} [294:42-295:2] Delete last sentence "If ... undefined." {No longer possible.} SUBMITTED BY: Robert Corbett HISTORY: 12-117 m197 Submitted 12-117r1 m197 Draft answer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------