From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Mar 20 17:31:25 2006
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo2
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo2@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 66CDD1B555; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:31:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66])
	by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8A5152F4
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k2KHUuZb001189
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:31:11 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk)
Received: from 62-64-215-196.dynamic.dial.as9105.com (HELO mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com) ([62.64.215.196])
  by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2006 17:26:27 +0000
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AY8CAJ5xHkSHbCw
Received: from 62-64-215-196.dynamic.dial.as9105.com ([62.64.215.196]:49616)
	by mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1FLO8V-0008V3-Ug
	for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:25:44 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <20060228173731.8EB711B5BA@open-std.org>
References: <20060228173731.8EB711B5BA@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <51695C90-16F1-4C4D-88BE-BEE4FE273789@bcs.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Muxworthy <d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3351) WG5 interps letter ballot
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:03:23 +0000
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0 () 
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Yes   No    Number     Title
-Y-   ---   F03/0008   Pointer assignment and arrays
-C-   ---   F03/0012   Procedure pointers and the EXTERNAL attribute
-Y-   ---   F03/0018   Multiple identical specific procedures in
                        type-bound generic interfaces
-Y-   ---   F03/0019   Multiple identical specific procedures in
                        generic interface blocks
-Y-   ---   F03/0020   Kinds of intrinsic type parameters
-Y-   ---   F03/0023   IEEE_SET/GET_UNDERFLOW_MODE
-Y-   ---   F03/0025   Abstract types in CLASS IS type guard statements
-Y-   ---   F03/0026   Intrinsic types in CLASS IS type guard statements
-Y-   ---   F03/0027   Assumed character length in type guard statements
-Y-   ---   F03/0028   Commas in complex namelist output
-Y-   ---   F03/0029   Negative zero and intrinsic functions
-Y-   ---   F03/0045   Finalization and assumed-sized
                        arguments with INTENT(OUT)
-Y-   ---   F03/0056   Null input values and list-directed UDDTIO
-Y-   ---   F03/0057   Namelist I/O and UDDTIO
-Y-   ---   F03/0058   Recursive namelist output
-Y-   ---   F03/0060   Default initialization of INTENT(OUT),
                        assumed-size arrays {subsumed by F03/0045}
-Y-   ---   F03/0061   Polymorphism and explicit-shape or
                        assumed-size dummy arguments
-Y-   ---   F03/0062   Finalization of array constructors
_Y_   ___   F03/0063   Procedure pointers in BLOCK DATA program units
-Y-   ---   F03/0066   Precision of operation
-Y-   ---   F03/0067   Accuracy of conversion of real literal constants
-Y-   ---   F03/0068   First character of namelist output records
-Y-   ---   F03/0069   Procedure pointers in defined assignment
-C-   ---   F03/0070   Can child I/O statements be advancing I/O
                        statements?
-Y-   ---   F03/0072   Default initialization for "automatic" components

Comment on F03/0012
In the edits [7:35-36] should read [73:35-36].

Comment on F03/0070
Should the answer also be added as a bullet point at [199:6-10] "A  
child data transfer statement is processed differently from a  
nonchild data transfer statement in the following ways"?  For example:

199:8+
o Any ADVANCE= specifier in a child input/output statement is ignored.

I would be happy to leave this to the editor's discretion.

David Muxworthy

