From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Dec 22 10:53:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 56C97356943; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:53:32 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.53]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B3535690E for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:53:27 +0100 (CET) X-Trace: 711589068/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED/TalkTalk_Customer/2.101.19.134/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 2.101.19.134 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: XX/UNKNOWN X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0.1) Gecko/20111121 Firefox/8.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.5 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAO788k4CZROG/2dsb2JhbAAMN699JT0WGAMCAQIBSw0IAr9IjA8EjiSGW4U8jHc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,392,1320624000"; d="txt'?scan'208";a="711589068" Received: from host-2-101-19-134.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.101.19.134]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2011 09:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: <4EF2FE14.5060300@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:53:24 +0000 From: John Reid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0.1) Gecko/20111121 Firefox/8.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Ballot on Corrigendum 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050509050102080106010804" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050509050102080106010804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit WG5, I am sorry to be slow is announcing the result of the ballot on Corrigendum 1 - I have been overwhelmed by other commitments in the past week (mainly to do with having builders in the house). The draft result is attached. Please let me know ASAP if I have missed your ballot or made any other mistake. No-one voted NO and only two voted YES with comments, so the ballot passes, subject to the comments being addressed. The comments have been discussed by email by Malcolm Cohen, Robert Corbett, David Muxworthy, and Bill Long. The revised version is N1901. This has annotations showing what changes have been made. Please let me know by 1 Jan if you have any comments on this. David will then produce a final WG5 draft without the annotations and prepare the version to send to SC22. Happy Christmas! John. --------------050509050102080106010804 Content-Type: text/plain; name="N1896-1.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="N1896-1.txt" ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1896-1 Result of WG5 letter ballot on draft Corrigendum 1 John Reid N1894 asked this question Please answer the following question "Is N1893, with the references and notes removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication as Corrigendum 1 for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways. 1) Yes. 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. 3) No, for the following reasons. 4) Abstain. The numbers of answers in each category were: 6 for 1) Yes. (Chen, Moene, Muxworthy, Reid, Snyder, Whitlock) 2 for 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes (Corbett, Long) 0 for 3) No, for the following reasons. () 1 for 4) Abstain. (Bader) The ballot passes, subject to the comments being addressed. Here are the responses in detail _______________________________________________________________________ Robert Corbett I realize that the issues I am raising here should have been raised earlier. I do not expect any changes to be made either now or subsequently as a result of these comments. In the first edit for the Introduction, the form of the proposed sentence differs from the form of the sentences already present in the cited paragraph. The sentence An array or an object with a nonconstant length type parameter can have the VALUE attribute. is more in line with the existing sentences. In the second edit for the Introduction, the word "may" in the proposed edit should, perhaps, be "can". In the edits for Subclause 1.6.2, the final sentence of the second new paragraph could be clearer. The alternative sentence This part of ISO/IEC specifies that an INTENT(OUT) argument of a pure subroutine shall not be polymorphic. is clearer, though wordier. There might be a problem with the edit for Subclause 5.5. If a derived type definition appears in the specification part of a BLOCK construct, the edits provided appear to say that the scope of a data entity implicitly declared in the derived type definition is the BLOCK construct. The BLOCK construct would be the host of the scope that is the derived type definition. _______________________________________________________________________ Bill Long 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. Comment 1: This is not a comment on David's work, but rather an observation of something that might have been overlooked. In the edits for [76:10-] para 9 of 4.5.6.3 is moved to the beginning of the subclause. But the Note 4.49, which naturally refers to that paragraph did not get moved. Should it have been moved as well, or put at the end of the subclause as is often done with notes? The Note now seems out of place. Comment 2: Edit citation [246:15] should have been [246:15+]. Note that neither of these comments needs to be addressed for the Corrigendum to pass. The first concerns the placement of a Note that can easily be addressed in the next revision. The second relates to text that will be deleted before sending to ISO. These are for consideration mainly if other comments require changes. _______________________________________________________________________ --------------050509050102080106010804--