01-335

    Response to Chapter 5 Comments

To:         J3
From:       Craig Dedo
Date:       August 22, 2001
Subject:    Response to Chapter 5 Comments

    The A Team considered the comments in 01-260 and recommends as
    follows.

1.  We no longer have BINDNAME, so the comments on [65:13-14,16]
are no longer relevant.

2.  No to all of the comments from [66:29-30] through [68:16-18].
The redundancy is useful.

3.  [68:41]     Defer this issue to Data Subgroup.

4.  [69:33]     No.  "Base object" is defined for variables [95:7].
Typo is fixed in 01-313.

5.  [70:24-25]  No.  Paper 298r1 got rid of bind-spec.

6.  [70:36]     Yes.  Change "shape" to "bounds".

7.  [70:42,44]  No.  These terms are already set and we should not
change them.

8.  [72:12]     No.  This is the common English meaning of
"defined".

9.  [74:13]     Yes.  Change "disassociated" to "undefined" at
[74:17].

10. [74:35-37] and [76:9-10]    Defer until Interpretation 31 is
resolved.

11. [77:17]     No.  This is no longer relevant.  Language-binding-
spec has been deleted.

12. [77:36+]    Yes.  Add a new paragraph, "If the ALLOCATABLE and
VOLATILE attributes are both specified, then the volatility shall
apply to the allocation status, bounds, and value of the allocated
object."

13. [83:40+]    No. [30:37-38] says it already.

14. [87:27]     No.  Base object can be a variable.

References
01-007r2, Fortran 2000 Draft
01-260, Comments on Section 5
[End of J3 / 01-335]