07-268

To:          J3
From:        Dick Hendrickson
Subject:     Interpretation: Does allocate define subcomponents?
Date: 2007 July 30


NUMBER: F03/0098
TITLE: Does allocate with source= define subcomponents?
KEYWORDS: allocate, source, define
DEFECT TYPE: Erratum
STATUS: J3 consideration in progress


QUESTION:

Was it intended that an allocate with a source= clause define
subcomponents?

Bullet 11 on 422 says "Successful execution of an allocate STATEMENT
...causes the subcomponent to become undefined."

ANSWER:

An Allocate with a SOURCE= specifier was intended to define
subcomponents.

In fact, none of the lists in clause 16 account for a SOURCE=
specifier.  Edits are supplied to clarify this.

EDITS:

Potential edits:

(i) insert "with no SOURCE= specifier" in that list item

 (ii) add a new list item, something like
      "(11a) Successful execution of an ALLOCATE statement with a
             SOURCE= clause causes a subcomponent of the allocated
             object to become undefined if the corresponding
             subcomponent of the SOURCE= expression is undefined."

 (iii) [421:27-28] list item 19, modify maybe by adding after
       "Allocation of an object", "except by an ALLOCATE statement
       with a SOURCE=  clause".  (SOURCE= overrides the default
       initialisation.)

 (iv) [421:28+] insert new list item. something like
      "(19a) Successful execution of an ALLOCATE statement with a
             SOURCE= clause causes a subcomponent of the allocated
             object to become defined if the corresponding subcomponent
             of the SOURCE= expression is defined."

SUBMITTED BY: Dick Hendrickson

HISTORY: 07-xxx    m181  F03/00xx Submitted