X3J3/96 - 111
                                                   Page 1 of 1

Date:      May 16, 1996
To:        Malcolm Cohen, WG5, X3J3
From:      Dick Hendrickson
Subject:   Liaison report on Allocatable Components TR
Reference: April 29, 1996 version of TR

This TR appears to be complete except for one major objection
and a few relatively minor comments.

After having seen two iterations of the concept of automatic
deallocation and reallocation for assignment to entities with
allocatable components X3J3 believes this feature should be
dropped from the TR.  It should be the user's responsibility to
ensure that the left-hand and right-hand component arrays have
the same shape, just as must be done for ordinary arrays.

We'd prefer to have the word "minimal" dropped from the various
"Implementation Cost" sections.

There needs to be a discussion, and probably text added to the
standard, discussing the ENTRY statement in an allocatable
function.

We're concerned about the extension to NULL() to include
unallocated arrays.  This is a confusing overload, but we do not
have a suggested change.

The example for REAL_POLYNOMIAL_MODULE contains many errors.
RP_ADD_R assigns to an input variable, not the function result.
RP_ADD_RP needs P2 in its argument list.  The array constructor
for P should probably contain a 4.  The values for Q should
probably be -1, 1 since RP_ADD_R appears to treat the first
subscript as the X**0th coefficient.

The last sentence in Note 4.34.1 appears to be a hangover from
text when automatic (re)allocation was not allowed.

The phrase "associated with a dummy argument" (two places) is
confusing.  Can it be reworded to include something like "an
actual argument associated with a corresponding dummy",
especially in the clarifying note.

In some cases the ":" is missing after "Example".