From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Mon Nov 12 13:17:24 2012
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id C1E0F35696B; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:17:24 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 1019 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:17:23 CET
Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8847F356948
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:17:23 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:40201)
	by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1TXsgc-0000uy-pP (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:00:18 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1TXsgc-0000E5-TS (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:00:18 +0000
Received: from [87.112.114.250] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 12 Nov 2012 12:00:18 +0000
Date: 12 Nov 2012 12:00:18 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4834) WG5 letter ballot 5 on Fortran 2008
 interpretations
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1211121200180.27452@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20121112085727.883FC356954@www.open-std.org>
References: <20121112085727.883FC356954@www.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

My vote is the following:

Yes  No   Number     Title

-C-  ---  F08/0040   MOVE_ALLOC for coarrays
-Y-  ---  F08/0074   Implicit type in BLOCK construct
-Y-  ---  F08/0077   Function references as variables in DATA statements
-Y-  ---  F08/0078   Are the IEEE values +0 and -0 distinguished
---  ---  F08/0079   NAMELIST and type specification
---  ---  F08/0080   Array constructors with polymorphic values
-Y-  ---  F08/0081   Deallocation error handling
-Y-  ---  F08/0082   Generic identifier and dtv arguments

F08/0040

I am not convinced about the last sentence of the proposed addition to
[372:29+] 13.7.118, p6+, because my understanding is that it is not
actually required to be a barrier-type synchronisation.  Would "may be"
be better than "is"?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.