J3/03-225r1 As amended at J3 Meeting 165. This revision changes only the explanation for [105:6-7]. Date: 21 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] This constraint refers to parent components; | it prevents invocation of a deferred binding. 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".