J3/06-346r1 Date: 16 November 2006 To: J3 From: Van Snyder / Aleksandar Donev Subject: Notes on Clause 6 References: 06-210r2, 06-007r1 This is a response to 06-346. Q. [117:1] We should change the term "structure component" since it can be read to mean "component of a structure" rather than being a made-up term. A structure is scalar, but "structure component" can be an array. I find this very weird and confusing. Maybe "object component". A. Present long-standing terminology does not need to be changed. Q. [117:10] We need an equivalent to C614 for the . At present this seems to be a plain restriction (non constraint) at [124:5]. A. Agreed. EDIT. [117:11+] Add new constraint "C614a (R613) If appears, the number of s shall be equal to the co-rank of ." EDIT. [124:5] Delete "The number ... object." Q. [126:30] Shouldn't we add "as if via intrinsic assignment" or something alike to the end of the paragraph. The current phrasing "the value of becomes that of " does not seem to make sense for the case when is scalar and an array. A. No, the operation is cloning, not assignment. An edit is supplied to correct the wording for the broadcast case. EDIT. [126:30] Append to sentence "if has the same rank as , otherwise the value of each element of becomes that of ". Note to editor: wordsmith if you have the time. Q. [120:11] We had an e-mail discussion about the "does not require the shape". A subroutine reference such as: CALL Subroutine(assumed_size_dummy%component) does not "require" the shape of assumed_size, yet we want to prohibit it. We seemed to agree that the wording should be improved. A. "We" do not agree that the shape of assumed_size_dummy is not required, assumed_size_dummy is not the actual argument and is already prohibited. ===END===