From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Fri Jun 30 21:40:10 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 31E2F23776; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:40:10 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mx1.liv.ac.uk (mx1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.179])
	by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842432190E
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:40:08 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from mailhuba.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.36])
	by mx1.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1FwOqV-00078i-9f
	for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:40:07 +0100
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mailhuba.liv.ac.uk)
	by mailhuba.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1FwOqV-0007wZ-8L
	for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:40:07 +0100
Received: from host86-144-214-154.range86-144.btcentralplus.com ([86.144.214.154] helo=JLSdesktop)
	by mailhuba.liv.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.54)
	id 1FwOqV-0007wW-4m
	for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:40:07 +0100
From: "Lawrie Schonfelder" <j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk>
To: <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: RE: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3404)  [ukfortran] WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:40:06 +0100
Message-ID: <POEELDFOEFIJJNPMCLFHGEKDCBAA.j.l.schonfelder@liv.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
In-Reply-To: <20060630180313.C14AC216E9@open-std.org>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

I am not sure of the context but this is very much code that I intended to be legal and to mean what is obvious when I
wrote the first spec for parameterised data types. If this is illegal the whole concept is flawed below the water line.

--
Lawrie Schonfelder
Wirral, UK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu
> [mailto:j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu]On Behalf Of Michael
> Ingrassia
> Sent: 30 June 2006 19:03
> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org; j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk
> Subject: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3404) [ukfortran] WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2
>
>
> I'm not sure I believe yet that
> a <char-length> can't appear in a <derived-type-spec>.
>
> The case I'd worry about is something like
>
> 	TYPE NEWCHAR(L)
> 	INTEGER, LEN :: L
> 	CHARACTER*L :: C
> 	END TYPE
>
> (which may not be legal Fortran 2003 but at least it's close!)
>
> Then  NEWCHAR(L) is a derived-type-spec and L is a char-length within
> the meaning of [41:20-37], isn't it?
>
>
> 	--Michael I.
>