J3/99-147r2 Date: 27th May 1999 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Unresolved issue 143 1. Introduction Parts of the ALLOCATABLE syntax have not been changed to reflect the introduction of allocatable scalars. Actually, neither have the semantics been changed - did we really add ALLOCATABLE scalars or not? If so, can I grumble about certain obvious places (ALLOCATABLE components, ALLOCATABLE attribute and ALLOCATABLE statement) all still requiring an array? 2. Edits {Allow scalar allocatable components} [43:16] Before "a" insert "scalar or". {Constraint should apply to allocatable scalars as well} [71:7] Change "array" to "entity". {Allow scalars to have the ALLOCATABLE attribute} [83:34] Change "array. Such an array" to "object. If it is an array it" {Change the ALLOCATABLE statement to use } [91:20-22] Change "" to "" thrice. {Change the ALLOCATABLE statement to allow scalars} [91:24] Change "arrays" to "objects". {Add an ALLOCATABLE scalar to the example} [91:27] After "B (:)" insert ", SCALAR" [91:28] After ", B" insert ", SCALAR". {ALLOCATABLE scalar result should require an explicit interface} [267:26] After "pointer" add "or is allocatable". {ALLOCATABLE statements now use .} [369:41] After "," insert "in an ," [370:3] Delete "an or in" {Delete the J3 note.} [370:4-11] Delete.