To: J3                                                       J3/10-124
From: John Reid
Subject: Editorial corrections re inclusive scope
Date: 2010 February 13
References: 09-303r2, 09-007r3

This paper suggests some changes to the edits in 09-303r2.

1.
Change the edit
[15:36+] Insert new definitions
  "1.3.115.1
   <<block scoping unit>>
   scoping unit that is a BLOCK construct

   1.3.115.2
   <<inclusive scope>>
   scoping unit including any BLOCK construct whose host is that scoping
   unit or whose host is another BLOCK construct in the inclusive scope

   Note 1.4a
   That is, inclusive scope is the scope as if BLOCK constructs were not
   scoping units.".
to
[15:36+] Insert new definitions
  "1.3.115.1
   <<block scoping unit>>
   scoping unit of a BLOCK construct

   1.3.115.2
   <<inclusive scope>>
   scoping unit plus every block scoping unit whose host is that scoping
   unit or that is nested within such a block scoping unit

   Note 1.4a
   That is, inclusive scope is the scope as if BLOCK constructs were not
   scoping units.".
Reasons: The definitions are incorrect since a BLOCK construct and its
scoping unit are not always the same. The second definition is clearer
without using recursion.

2.
In the edit for [172:9+] 8.1.4 BLOCK construct, end of subclause,
Change
    "A global SAVE does not affect variables local to a BLOCK construct,
    because it is a scoping unit.  For example,"
to
    "A SAVE statement outside a BLOCK construct does not affect variables
    local to the BLOCK construct, because a SAVE statement affects
    variables in its scoping unit rather than in its inclusive scope.
    For example,"
Reason: A BLOCK construct and its scoping unit are not always the same.
The reader needs to be reminded that SAVE is defined to refer to the
scoping unit.

3.
Change the edit
[186:15] 8.2.1 Branch concepts, p1,
  "same scoping unit" -> "same inclusive scope".
to
[186:15] 8.2.1 Branch concepts, p1,
  "in a scoping unit ... same scoping unit" ->
  "to a labeled branch target statement in the same inclusive scope".
Reason: Clearer since only inclusive scope is involved here.

4.
Change the edits
[441:5] After "program (2.2.2)" insert
  "excluding any nested construct that has a construct entity with
   the same identifier".
[441:6]
  Change "scope of a scoping unit (2.2)"
  to "inclusive scope, excluding any nested construct that has a
      construct entity with the same identifier".
[441:7] After "scope of a construct (7.2.4, 8.1)" insert
  "excluding any nested construct that has a construct entity with
   the same identifier".
to
[441:5-7]
  Change the first three bullet points to
  "o A global identifier has a scope of a program (2.2.2) excluding
     the inclusive scope of any nested construct that has a construct
     entity with the same identifier;
   o A local identifier has a scope of an inclusive scope excluding
     the inclusive scope of any nested construct that has a construct
     entity with the same identifier;
   o An identifier of a construct entity has a scope of the inclusive
     scope of the construct (7.2.4, 8.1) excluding  the inclusive scope
     of any nested construct that has a construct entity with the same
     identifier;"
or
[441:5-8]  Replace bulleted list by
  "  The scope of
  "o a global identifier is a program (2.2.2) excluding
     the inclusive scope of any nested construct that has a construct
     entity with the same identifier;
   o a local identifier is an inclusive scope excluding
     the inclusive scope of any nested construct that has a construct
     entity with the same identifier;
   o an identifier of a construct entity is the inclusive
     scope of the construct (7.2.4, 8.1) excluding the inclusive scope
     of any nested construct that has a construct entity with the same
     identifier;
   o an identifier of a statement entity is a statement or part of a
     statement (3.3)"
Reasons: Except for the program in the first bullet, it is always
inclusive scope that is involved. The alternative is just wordsmithing to
avoid the awkward "scope of an inclusive scope".

5.
Change the edit
[443:1] p4,
  Replace "in a scoping unit"
  With "in an inclusive scope excluding any nested construct that has a
        construct entity with the same identifier,".
to
[443:1-2] p4,
  Replace "scoping unit" by "scope", twice.
Reason: Having defined scope in 16.1, there is no need to repeat it here.
Note that this change is made five times on page 445.


6. Add the edits

[11:44] In 1.3.82  interface body, change  "scoping unit that" to
   "{interface-body};".
Reason: An interface body and its scoping unit are not always the same.

[20:18] In 1.3.143.1 local variable, delete "or BLOCK construct" and
    "or construct".
Reason: Not needed any more.

[101:12] In 5.3.16 SAVE attribute, end of para 4,
    add "of" before "a main program".
Reason: A main program and its scoping unit are not always the same.
Similarly for a module or submodule.

[215:9] In 9.6.2.5 ASYNCHRONOUS= specifier in a data transfer statement,
   para 4, "scoping unit" -> "inclusive scope".
Reason: For other implicit things we now have inclusive scope, so this
seems appropriate here.