To: J3 J3/01-391 From: Group C Date: 5-dec-2001 Subject: Various issues in Sections 1 - 4 All references are for 01-007R4, pdf version. 1) In section 2.2, the list of scoping units [11:48 - 12:2] does not mention statement and construct scope entities (see section 16.1.3, page 381). Edits (identical changes in two places) to include the missing text: [12:1] and [406:14] remove "or" [12:2] and [406:15] change "." to ", or" [12:2+] and [406:15+] add "(4) Implied DO in a DATA statement or array constructor, (5) FORALL statement and construct, (6) SELECT TYPE construct block, or (7) ASSOCIATE construct." 2) Sections 2.2.3 and 2.3.1 refer to the execution of a program as a sequence of "computations". This term seems too restrictive. For example, the program may perform only formatted output. The word "actions" seems more inclusive. Edits: [12:13] change "computations" to "actions" [13:23] remove "computational" [13:25] remove "computational" [13:28] remove "computational" 3) Section 5 refers to all specification methods; 5.1 describes explicit type specification, and 5.3 describes implicit type specification. Edit: [16:31] change "(5)" to "(5.1)" 4) In 2.4.3.1.1 the list of things that cause a variable to not be local does omits the new method for interoperating with glocal C objects. Edit: [17:7] after "COMMON," add " does not have the BIND attribute," 5) In the list of examples of statement keywords, two entries do not belong. Edit: [19:11] remove "UNIT, KIND," 6) The term "structure" is defined in [16:11-12] and used in [32:1]. Text identical to the definition reappears in [33:18]. Edit: [33:18] delete line 7) [46:1-4] This sentence must have been lifted from the screening exam for potential authors of the IRS code. I do not, at this time, not withstanding attempts to the contrary, and not wanting to negatively influence anyone who might otherwise want to make an attempt, have an alternate wording for the afore mentioned sentence. 8) In Note 4.43 the list of ways in which the components of a derived type object can be referenced without explicitly using the component names omits the case of intrinsic assignment. Edit: [52:Note 4.43+8] after "value constructor," add " intrinsic assignment," 9) The sentence following constraint C485 [63:2] is identical to constraint C482 [62:17]. Edit: [63:3-4] change "If type-spec is omitted, each ac-value ... parameters. The type" to "If type-spec is omitted, the type"