J3/01-282R1 Date: August 23, 2001 To: J3 From: Dick Hendrickson Subject: Chapter 6 comments >> indicates recommended actions 1) Page 93, R603. Should there be a BNF description of OBJECT? I couldn't find one, only a text description on page 16 in ch 2. >> nothing needed, same as F95 2) Page 83, R604 to C607, etc. Wouldn't it be better to describe things like this in terms of default rules in chapter 2? There is, for example, no BNF here for default-int-variable, yet I'm sure the term is used somewhere, so I suppose there is a BNF for it somewhere. Seems out of place here to BNF things that no one will get wrong when they see them. >> nothing needed, same as F95 3) Page 94, C609. To me this reads like the rightmost can't be a derived type thing. >> nothing needed, same as F95 4) Page 95, C613. Now that we have allocatable scalars, do we need this constraint? Would it be better to say that the allocatable or pointer thing must be scalar? >> NO 5) Page 95, note 6.4. This note just restates the previous sentence without adding any explanation. This is a complicated enough point that examples/rational are needed. >> NO 6) Page 96, note 6.7. The sentence about only a primary in an expression. Don't we somewhere make an exception so that in CALL SUB (X) X isn't an expression? (otherwise we couldn't have X be intent out). Then is call sub (x%kind) prohibited? >> NO 7) Page 96, 6.2.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Page 73 (ch 5 on assumed size arrays) says it can also appear in LBOUND. We should make these two places consistent (ala Dick Weaver). I'd prefer to delete LBOUND from 73. >> Page 73:4 delete "on in a…LBOUND" 8) Page 102, 6.3.1.2, 3rd paragraph. What are the associated variables that become allocated when an allocated variable is allocated? >> Nothing needed 9) Page 104, note 6.20. Should this be normative? >> NO 10) Page 106, 6.3.3.2, 2nd paragraph, second sentence. Seems to restate the first, or how can a portion be independent of any other portion? >> Page 106:18 insert "not" before "independent"