From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Thu May  4 14:39:34 2006
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dmo5
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dmo5@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 1BE3E1AE09; Thu,  4 May 2006 14:39:34 +0200 (CET DST)
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 35C4C16821
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu,  4 May 2006 14:39:31 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from oin.rl.ac.uk (oin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.200])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k44Cd4d1028216
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 4 May 2006 14:39:09 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk)
X-RAL-MFrom: <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
X-RAL-Connect: <jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]>
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202])
	by oin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k44CSOk3022137
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 4 May 2006 13:28:24 +0100
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k44CSOv6011489;
	Thu, 4 May 2006 13:28:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4459F368.6080909@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 13:28:24 +0100
From: John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060209 Fedora/1.7.12-1.1.2.legacy
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>
Subject: Interpretations ballot and draft Corrigendum 2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.9 : BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
X-Spam-Score: 0 () 
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk


Dear WG5,

I have made one (very minor) correction to the draft of N1658 - the result of 
F03/070, should be C. The final version is on the WG5 server.

David has prepared a draft Corrigendum 2, which is on the server as N1659. It 
will need some minor changes once J3 has considered the C items. You will also 
see some comments from David in brackets and italics. I would be most grateful 
if the interps subgroup could look at N1658 and N1659 next week.

One piece of good news - ISO has agreed to republish Corrigendum 1 exactly as we 
sent it. We may need to change the format for Corrigendum 2, but we have no 
guidelines so David has kept to the old format, as used for all the f90 and f95 
corrigenda.

Cheers,

John.