NUMBER: 000206 TITLE: Collating sequence inconsistencies KEYWORDS: Collating sequence, ACHAR, CHAR, ICHAR DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: [F95 CD 36:28+] says that "A <> is a one-to-one mapping of the characters into the nonnegative integers such that each character corresponds to a different nonnegative integer." QUESTION 1: Does this definition imply that the one-to-one mapping is dense? That is, is there a requirement that if the default CHARACTER type has characters, the corresponding collationg sequence maps to 0..-1 ? QUESTION 2: If the answer to question 1 is NO: is it correct that the restriction 0 <= i <= -1 on argument I of the intrinsic procedure CHAR (13.14.19) is inappropriate? QUESTION 3: If the answer to question 1 is NO: is it correct that the description of the <> of the intrinsic procedure ICHAR (13.14.45), 0 <= ICHAR(C) <= -1 is inappropriate? QUESTION 4: Shouldn't argument I of the intrinsic procedure ACHAR (13.14.2) be restricted to the nonnegative integers? ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Michael Hennecke (hennecke@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) HISTORY: submitted Feb. 17, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000207 TITLE: Integer bit-model inconsistency KEYWORDS: Bit manipulation procedures, models for integer data DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: QUESTION: Is the following observation true? [F90 185:last scentence of 13.5.7] and [WG5/N1176, 219:22+] says ``In particular, whereas the models are identical for w_{z-1}=0, they do not correspond for w_{z-1}=1 and ...'' This statement assumes r==2 in the model for integer data defined in 13.7.1, it is not true for general r. The above sentence should be changed to something like ``In particular, whereas the models are identical for r=2 and w_{z-1}=0, they do not correspond for r/=2 or w_{z-1}=1, and ...'' ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Michael Hennecke (hennecke@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) HISTORY: submitted Mar. 12, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000208 TITLE: nonadvancing output followed by list directed output KEYWORDS: DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: submitted QUESTION: Section 10.8.2, last sentence. If nonadvancing output is followed by list-directed output, is a blank required before the first character written? (I assume that if the first character of the current record is not a blank, list-directed output is not required, though possibly permitted, to replace that character with a blank.) ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Robert Paul Corbett (robert.corbett@Eng.sun.com) HISTORY: submitted Mar. 13, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000209 TITLE: STOP|PAUSE in I/O statement KEYWORDS: DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: QUESTION: Section 9.7. May a function referenced in an I/O statement execute a STOP or PAUSE statement? If STOP statements are permitted, what is the state of the file at the end of execution? ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Robert Paul Corbett (robert.corbett@Eng.sun.com) HISTORY: submitted Mar. 13, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000210 TITLE: nonadvancing write followed by list directed write KEYWORDS: DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: QUESTION: If a program does a nonadvancing WRITE followed by a list-directed WRITE, must the list-directed WRITE write to the current record or may it start a new record? For what it's worth, CRI f90 starts a new record. ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Robert Paul Corbett (robert.corbett@Eng.sun.com) HISTORY: submitted Mar. 13, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000211 TITLE: Multiple MODULE PROCEDURE specs KEYWORDS: MODULE PROCEDURE, generic interface, USE association DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: WG5/N1176 (X3J3/96-007) says [194:21-23]: "Constraint: A in a shall not be one which previously had been specified in any with the same generic identifier in the same specification part." QUESTION: 1. Is it correct that this constraint does not preclude the following? MODULE foo1 INTERFACE generic_spec MODULE PROCEDURE proc1 END INTERFACE CONTAINS SUBROUTINE proc1 END SUBROUTINE proc1 END MODULE foo1 MODULE foo2 USE foo1 INTERFACE generic_spec MODULE PROCEDURE proc1 END INTERFACE END MODULE foo2 Although foo2 clearly violates the uniqueness conditions in 14.1.2.3, it seems that it does not violate a Constraint. (Actual compilers do not seem to detect this form of violation of 14.1.2.3 at compile-time.) 2. If the answer to (1) is YES, wouldn't it be sensible to extend that constraint to cases where a "previous" specification of in a with the same generic identifier in the specification part of an accessible module had occured, _and_ that and generic-spec have PUBLIC accessibility? Probably the wording might be quite complicated because of the possibility of s if FOO1 and s in FOO2, but the essence should be straightforward... The situation in (1) is very similar to the following example, which _is_ detected as erroneous by the compilers I tried: MODULE foo1 CONTAINS SUBROUTINE proc1 END SUBROUTINE proc1 END MODULE foo1 MODULE foo2 USE foo1, ONLY: proc1 USE foo1, ONLY: proc2 => proc1 INTERFACE generic_spec MODULE PROCEDURE proc1 MODULE PROCEDURE proc2 END INTERFACE END MODULE foo2 In both cases, the specific s (and the ) are accessible in MODULE foo2, and the interfaces are explicit anyway. ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Michael Hennecke (hennecke@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) HISTORY: submitted Apr. 12, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000212 TITLE: EQUIVALENCE of Data Objects of Different Types or Kinds KEYWORDS: EQUIVALENCE limitations DEFECT TYPE: STATUS: Section 5.5.1 acknowledges that it is possible to construct equivalences between data objects of different types or kinds: "If equivalenced objects have differing type or type parameters, the EQUIVALENCE statement does not cause type conversion or imply mathematical equivalence." [56:35-36] However, section 5.5.1 also has severe retrictions on equivalences between data objects of differing types and kinds. Following rule R547, there are a series of constraints. Constraints 3 through 6 read: Constraint: If an is of type default integer, default real, double precision real, default complex, default logical, or numeric sequence type, all of the objects in the equivalence set must be these types. Constraint: If an is of type default character or character sequence type, all of the objects in the equivalence set must be of these types. Constraint: If an is of a derived type that is not a numeric sequence or character sequence type, all of the objects in the equivalence set must be of the same type. Constraint: If an is of an intrinsic type other than default integer, default real, double precision real, default complex, default logical, or default character, all of the objects in the equivalence set must be of the same type with the same kind type parameter value. Question 1) Why are these constraints in the standard? What useful purpose do they serve? What problems do they prevent or solve? Question 2) Could a standard-conforming processor relax or eliminate one or more of these constraints, as an extension, without sacrificing full conformance to the standard? Question 3) Can a data object of sequence derived type be equivalenced to another data object of a different sequence derived type? Assume that a processor has among its intrinsic types INTEGER (1) (8 bits), INTEGER (2) (16 bits), and INTEGER (4) (32 bits). Given the following definitions, is the EQUIVALENCE statement standard conforming? TYPE T1 SEQUENCE INTEGER (1) I1_ARRAY (36) END TYPE TYPE T4 SEQUENCE INTEGER (4) I4_ARRAY (9) END TYPE TYPE (T1) OBJECT_1 TYPE (T4) OBJECT_4 EQUIVALENCE (OBJECT_1, OBJECT_4) Question 5) Can an object of sequence derived type be equivalenced to an array of intrinsic type? Assume the definitions of question 3. Is the following EQUIVALENCE statement standard conforming? INTEGER (4) :: I4_ARRAY_9 (9) EQUIVALENCE (OBJECT_1, I4_ARRAY_9) Question 6) Can an object of sequence derived type be equivalenced to a scalar of intrinsic type? ANSWER: EDIT: SUBMITTED BY: Craig Dedo (Craig.Dedo@mixcom.com) HISTORY: submitted Jan. 23, 1996 (first appeared in 96-006r2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------