From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Nov 29 09:32:53 2013 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 8E6E99DB113; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:32:53 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 685 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:32:52 CET Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745B73566C5 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:32:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAT8LLK4067982 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:21:24 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <5D5BB229B4F84EB69F196464858D169A@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "sc22wg5" References: <20131126013542.D88A93582CC@www.open-std.org> <20131126110419.1106A35832A@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20131126110419.1106A35832A@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5120) (j3.2006) [ Draft corrigendum 3] Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:21:22 +0900 Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Please answer the following question "Is N1995, with the references and notes removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication as Corrigendum 3 for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways. 3) No, for the following reasons. The edits for F08/0086 do not work. This interp must be failed and restarted, and the corrigendum must be altered to remove it. Van Snyder suggested: > "The rank of an implied-shape array is the > number of asterisks in the ". This does not work, as asterisks can appear in an in many contexts, not just as an upper bound. An additional BNF term needs to be added so that we can count the number of relevant asterisks. This was actually foreshadowed in note (1) after the edits in the interp... unfortunately no-one noticed until now that it was in fact necessary rather than a potential editorial nicety. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.