RE: Question on IR2058

Chuck,

I appear to have parsed the sentence differently from the intended parse.  I
interpreted "appropriate for the type" as qualifying just "subprograms", not
the whole list.  My main concern was which subprograms were intended.  The
list already includes the predefined operations, which covers overloaded
operators and subprograms such as deallocate, open, close, etc.  What other
subprograms are there?

The wording in my draft LCS is:

  If the suffix of the selected name is a type mark, then the following
  declarations are identified:

  -- The declaration of the type or subtype denoted by the type mark

  -- If the type or subtype is a enumeration type, the enumeration literals
     of the base type

  -- If the type or subtype is a physical type, the units of the base type

  -- The implicit declarations of predefined operations for the type that
     are not hidden by homographs explicitly declared immediately within
     the package denoted by the prefix of the selected name

  -- The declarations of homographs, explicitly declared immediately within
     the package denoted by the prefix of the selected name, that hide
     implicit declarations of predefined operations for the type.

What do you think?

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Swart [mailto:cswart@model.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2005 10:33
> To: Peter Ashenden
> Cc: isac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Question on IR2058
> 
> 
> The intended wording is
> "The implicitly declared ... subprograms appropriate for the 
> type." For example, file types have several implicitly 
> declared procedures and 
> one implicitly declared
> function. Perhaps the wording "appropriate for the type" is 
> misleading, 
> since this has a technical
> meaning (for prefixes.) The LRM does use the word "appropriate" in 
> several contexts.
> 
> Any suggestions for improved reading?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> Peter Ashenden wrote:
> 
> >Folks,
> >
> >The proposed wording for identifying declarations to be made 
> >potentially visible along with a used type or subtype is:
> >
> >    b) The implicitly declared operations, enumeration literals (for
> >       enumeration types), physical units (for physical types) and
> >       subprograms appropriate for the type, or any subprograms or
> >       operators that are explicitly declared immediately within the
> >       same declarative region as the type and that hide an 
> implicitly
> >       declared subprogram or operator.
> >
> >I think "subprograms appropriate for the type" is a 
> hang-over from when 
> >we were considering including all subprograms with the type in their 
> >signatures.  Is that right?  If so, we should delete it.  If 
> not, what 
> >does it refer to?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >PA
> >
> >--
> >Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
> >Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
> >PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
> >Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> >Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>