J3/15-250
To:         J3 Members
From:       Van Snyder
Subject:    Local procedure pointers
Date: 2015 October 14

1. Introduction
===============

Paragraph 1 of subclause 12.6.2.4 does not make a distinction between
procedure pointers and unsaved local procedure pointers, not least
because "local procedure pointer" is not a defined term.  It needs to be
defined, and then used to avoid requiring a separate instance of saved
procedure pointers, or procedure pointers that are not local procedure
pointers, in every instance of a procedure.

2. Edits
========

[14:29+ 1.3.111.2+] Insert a definition

"1.3.111.3 <<local procedure pointer>>
 procedure pointer that is part of a local variable, or a named
 procedure pointer that is not a dummy argument or accessed by use or
 host association."

[21:26 1.3.156.2] Replace "accessible outside that scoping unit" with
"an entity or part of an entity that is accessible outside that scoping
unit."
{Fix local variable so that a component of a use/host-associated
 variable is not considered to be local.}

[314:21 12.6.2.4p1] Before "procedure pointers" insert "unsaved local".
{Use the new term to avoid requiring an instance of saved procedure
pointers or procedure pointers that are not local procedure pointers in
every instance of a procedure.}

{Completely unrelated editorial discovery:}
There is exactly one index entry for "sequence derived type" that refers
to subclause 5.9 concerning storage association.  That phrase doesn't
actually appear anywhere other than the index.  The term that appears
frequently in 5.9, and ought to be indexed (and in fact is indexed), is
"sequence type".
Suggestion to editor: Remove index entry for "sequence derived type".