08-238r1
To: J3
From: Van Snyder, originally Michael Ingrassia
Subject: Public Comment J32024
Date: 2008 August 12

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter: Robert Corbett
Subject: "pick a model of generic intrinsics"

The draft standard appears to use two distinct models
of generic intrinsics in different contexts.  One
model is that a generic intrinsic is like a user
defined generic except that the sets of specific
intrinsic procedures associated with some generic
intrinsics are infinite sets.  The language of
constraint C542 in Section 5.3.11 clearly reflects
that model.  The other model is that there are no
specific intrinsic procedures associated with a
generic intrinsic.  Under that model, the generic
intrinsic does not function as a surrogate for a
set of specific intrinsics, a reference of a generic
intrinsic is resolved against the generic intrinsic
itself.  That model appears to be the model in effect
in the rules for generic resolution in Section 12.5.5.2.
Either model could describe the semantics of generic
intrinsics.  Using both models adds unnecessary
confusion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

J3 response:

Some generic intrinsic procedures, such as LBOUND, do not have a
definite set of specific procedures.  The standard necessarily has
two models.  J3 believes that no changes are required.