J3/03-225 Date: 04 August 2003 To: J3 From: Michael Ingrassia Subject: Partial Response to N1524 (override, binding) Re: WG5/N1569 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1569 Partial Response to N1524 (override, binding) Michael Ingrassia paper 03-113r3 [42:9+] Subgroup does not feel it is necessary to add more words about overriding. For example, character lengths can be overridden but we have no specification words about it. [53:30] is fixed by N1552. Subgroup does not agree that the keywords are incorrect. Subgroup does agree that the cross-referencing is wrong, Move the first reference from [56:5] to [56:3]. Insert "A" before the first "binding" at [56:5]. The bad use of the term "binding" is fixed in N1560. [59:8+10] Delete duplicate blank line. [59::8+11] Replace with "For a more elaborate example see C1.4." [105:6-7] Subgroup is also confused and suspects this is either spurious or wrong. Defer to J3. Subgroup notes that (R612) bits are fixed by N1560. The xrefs for 4.5.7 are fixed by N1552. Subgroup thinks dtv-type-spec may indeed use an abstract type with the CLASS keyword. paper 03-138r1 [55:15-17] In "Within the of a module, each shall specify, either explicitly or implicitly, the same accessibility as every other generic binding in the same derived type that has the same ." change "in ..." -> "with that in the same derived type". >[53:21-22] I'm not sure I understand the reason given for this Subgroup: There are 8 conditions relevant to overriding and there is no reason to single one out. > [53:30+] I think the "may be" should be "is". See comments on 03-177 Subgroup rejects this because of [56:16-17]. paper 03-164r1 Move ref to (5.1.1.8) from [409:29] to [409:18]. [493:28-29] Delete. [493:35-36] Delete ", in" and ", TKR incompatibility" [494:1-2] Delete ",in" and ", TKR incompatibility" [494:32] "TKR" -> "type, kind type parameters, or rank, " [496:29] Delete "TKR". [496:32] "TKR incompatible ( ... )" -> "distinguishable" [496:34] Before "procedures" insert "references to" Change "distinguishable" to "unambiguous" {Use same word in first half of sentence as in second half, and avoid potential confusion with applying "distinguishable" to a procedure set instead of a dummy argument pair.} We see nothing wrong with the definition or use of "TKR compatible".