************************************************** J3/03-269r1 Date: November 14 2003 To: J3 From: Aleksandar Donev (JOR) Subject: US Public Comments to be Considered for Future Revision Reference: US Public Comments #1-#21 ************************************************** At meeting 164 J3 recommended that some of the features suggested during Public Comment be considered for the next revision. ____________________________________________________ JOR recommends the following items be considered further: 1. Adding a C_SIZEOF or SIZEOF intrinsic (Suggested in Public Comment #6 by J. Vezina and others) 2. Add unsigned integer support (Suggested in Public Comment #6 by J. Vezina and others) 3. Add FIRSTLOC and LASTLOC array functions (Suggested in Public Comment #6 by J. Vezina) Note also that we could extend MAXLOC and MINLOC to do this, even though this would duplicate the MASK twice. 4. Add a return integer for program (Suggested by T. Plessel in Public Comment #1) 5. Multiple non-zero rank part refs (Suggested by A. Donev in Comment #5 and also 03-253) 6. Add an s= argument to EPSILON, RRSPACING and SPACING to indicate the direction of the epsilon. (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21) 7. Make the construct name local to the construct (not global) (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21 and in 03-258) 8. Allow BOZs as arguments for CHAR intrinsic (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21) ____________________________________________________ JOR recommends that the following comments not be considered any further: 1. Add a CONVERSION EXPLICIT statement to forbid implicit conversions (Suggested in Public Comment #6 by J. Vezina) 2. Add Design by Contract to Fortran (Suggested by T. Plessel in Public Comment #1) 3. Allow to rename the parent component of extended types (Suggested by A. Donev in Comment #7) 4. Allow any composite English word to be split (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21) 5. Add intrinsics to convert from array indices to offset and vice versa (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21) 6. Allow BOZs as arguments for LOGICAL intrinsic (Suggested by D. Nagle in Comment #21)