ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N2243 Results of WG5 letter ballot one on Fortran 2023 interpretations Malcolm Cohen, 2025/06/23 This is the first set of draft interpretations for Fortran 2023. They have all been approved in a J3 letter ballot. The WG5 ballot opened 2025-May-16 and closed 2025-June-16. Seventeen votes were received, plus one submission by a non-WG5-member. (Note that for ISO, members are individual experts, and not representing organizations or countries. This is different from INCITS and SC22.) All interpretations passed, with one No vote on F23/016 and comments on F23/003, F23/004, and F23/016. Summary of Voting (lowercase votes indicates a non-member submission). Interp: F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 F23 Name 003 004 005 006 008 009 010 011 012 013 015 016 017 018 Christopher Brady Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Reuben D. Budiardja Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Austin Bullock Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Daniel Chen Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Thomas L. Clune Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Malcolm Cohen Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Antigoni Georgiadou Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hidetoshi Iwashita Y C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ted Johnson Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gary Klimowicz Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mark LeAir Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Steve Lionel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Raghu Maddhipatla Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y David Muxworthy Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y John Reid Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Van Snyder c y y y y y y y y y y y y y Jon L. Steidel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Takata Masayuki Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C Y Y Result Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C Y Y For the Result line, Y = passes without change, C = passes with changes, N = fails. The resulting interpretations' final forms will be posted as a separate paper after assembling the Corrigendum. Comments on F23/003 Van Snyder I can't understand a prohibition against a constant having the same name as a common block, but an interp is not the right place to undo that F77 decision. Response: /Interp understands that the prohibition arises from the dislike of having the same identifier in a scoping unit refer to more than one entity, even if the reference can be disambiguated by context. /Interp agrees that this is not the time or place to reconsider the FORTRAN 77 design decision. Result: Interp F23/003 passes with no change. Comments on F23/004 Hidetoshi Iwashita As well as changing "be present" to "appear", "ROUND" should be changed to "the actual argument corresponding to ROUND". As a result, I think ROUND shall be present only if ... should be changed to The actual argument corresponding to ROUND shall appear only if... As an alternative suggestion, I think it would be better to change ROUND shall be present only if ... to ROUND shall appear only if ... and also change 16.9.157 OUT_OF_RANGE (X, MOLD [, ROUND]) to 16.9.157 OUT_OF_RANGE (X, MOLD) or OUT_OF_RANGE (X, MOLD [, ROUND]) This is similar to the argument DIM of 16.9.159 PARITY and 16.9.201 SUM and the argument COARRAY of 16.9.208 THIS_IMAGE. Response: The wording for ROUND does not need "the actual argument..." to be inserted: the existing wording is how we specify requirements on the actual arguments. This is explained in 16.9.1 paragraph 2, second sentence, which says "The ``Argument(s)'' paragraphs specify requirements on the actual arguments of the procedures." The change to the heading is unnecessary and would be ambiguous. The forms used in PARITY, SUM, and THIS_IMAGE are not ambiguous. Result: Interp F23/004 passes with no change. NO vote on F23/016 John Reid My no vote would change to yes if the following comments are given careful consideration. 1. The answer does not say where the text it quotes lies in the standard. It is from 9.7.1.2, para. 5 and 9.7.3.2, para 10. 2. The third paragraph of the answer says "That means that after execution of the ALLOCATE statement on an image, the coarray is allocated on all the images (in the team)." We are talking here about a set of corresponding coarrays rather than a single coarray so it would be clearer to say "That means that after execution of the ALLOCATE statement on an image, the corresponding coarrays are allocated on all the images (in the team)." Note that an extra paragraph on corresponding coarrays is added in interp. F23/018. The same comment applies in the final paragraph of the answer, which would be better written as " ... after the DEALLOCATE statement execution is complete on one image, the corresponding coarrays are unallocated on all active images." 3. It would be desirable to make these edits to the standard: 9.7.1.2, para. 5. Change the final sentence to "The coarray shall not become allocated on an image unless the corresponding coarrays are successfully allocated on all other active images in this team." 9.7.3.2, para 10. Change the final sentence to "A coarray shall not become deallocated on an image unless the corresponding coarrays are successfully deallocated on all other active images in this team." Response: 1. The answer does specify where the quoted text comes from, just more vaguely: "the ALLOCATE statement" and "the DEALLOCATE statement". /Interp agrees that greater precision would make it easier to find the quote, viz "[148:43-149:1] 9.7.1.2 Execution of an ALLOCATE statement, p5" and "[152:6-7] 9.7.3.2 Deallocation of allocatable variables, p10" for the first quoted sentence here and "[152:12-13] same paragraph" for the second. /Interp however considers that inserting these references into the middle of the sentence(s) would make them harder to read. It would be better to simply add a paragraph saying where the quotes are. 2. Although technically a single coarray object does exist only on a single image, it is common to use "a coarray on [multiple] images" to mean "the set of corresponding coarrays [on those images]". This occurs not just in discussion (verbal or written), but also in the standard, and the meaning is clear - there really is no ambiguity. /Interp considers that the answer as written is clear and understandable, so will not make any change here. 3. These are editorial changes. /Interp considers that editorial improvements to the standard are best done in the next revision by the editorial improvement process rather than the defect correction process. Result: Interp F23/016 passes with the addition of a paragraph to the end end of the ANSWER section, saying exactly where to find the quotes. Comment on F23/016: Takata Masayuki John's comments look sensible, but I couldn't follow the discussion in time. I hope the problem is resolved appropriately. Response: /Interp agrees that John's suggested edits should be carefully considered as an editorial improvement in the next revision. Result: /Interp hopes that John Reid will submit an editorial paper. ===END===