From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Sep 15 17:52:47 2012 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 0061435698B; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:52:46 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.54]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89BF356924 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:52:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 803213649/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.240.96/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.240.96 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBANmjVFBYaPBg/2dsb2JhbAANOL8zAQEEOk8LRlevWZMxjmqCP2ADmy6NOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,428,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="803213649" Received: from 88-104-240-96.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.240.96]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2012 16:52:36 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4752) Fourth WG5 ballot on interpretations From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20120902160848.E514F35693A@www.open-std.org> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:52:36 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3795DE83-81B9-4827-8FCE-D97162FD09EC@bcs.org.uk> References: <501BB236.4000004@stfc.ac.uk> <20120902160848.E514F35693A@www.open-std.org> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Herewith my vote. Yes No Number Title -C- --- F08/0043 Executing a type-bound procedure on a coindexed object -Y- --- F08/0048 Sequence association for coarrays -C- --- F08/0054 Requirements for needing an explicit interface -C- --- F08/0055 G editing for reals -Y- --- F08/0056 Non-polymorphic ALLOCATE with polymorphic SOURCE=3D -C- --- F08/0057 Interoperability with empty types -Y- --- F08/0058 ENTRY point RESULT variable -Y- --- F08/0059 Auto-targetting requirements -Y- --- F08/0060 Procedure pointer assignment with an EXTERNAL = target -Y- --- F08/0061 Description of the CONTIGUOUS attribute misworded? -Y- --- F08/0062 Mixing default initialization with DATA initialization -Y- --- F08/0063 G editing to a narrow output field -Y- --- F08/0064 STATUS of GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE -Y- --- F08/0065 Should certain procedures in intrinsic modules be pure? -Y- --- F08/0066 Are certain expressions with pointer initialization constant? -Y- --- F08/0067 Passing arrays of extended type objects -Y- --- F08/0068 Pointer association and extended type arrays -Y- --- F08/0069 Which part of an effective argument becomes undefined? -Y- --- F08/0070 Finalization of INTENT(OUT) arguments -Y- --- F08/0072 Final subroutines with corank -Y- --- F08/0073 Polymorphic auto-targetting ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0043 Why not remove C1229 now? It takes only three small edits. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0054 In the first edit shift 'only' four words to the right? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0055 Is it preferred style to use 'd=3D=3D0' in narrative English in the = edits (twice), rather than d=3D0? d is not a variable (although it = could be represented by a character variable). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0057 It would be more in accordance with previous practice to number the new = constraint C1504a. [Corrigendum 1 uses both upper and lower case = suffices for new constraints. Presumably lower case is preferred.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- David