From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Jan 15 07:57:25 2015
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 25F08358802; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:57:25 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0EE3586B9
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:57:18 +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 t0F6vC71012006
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:57:16 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <745EAE6DE4BB4FB6807A9DEF8DCC04DD@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20150109170920.37FA9357222@www.open-std.org> <20150114193404.745C835733E@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150114193404.745C835733E@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5416) RE: J3/14-279: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #32 revised - due 9-Jan-2015
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:57:13 +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

Nick Maclaren writes:
>F08/0110
>
>(1): I agree with the intent, of course.
>
>I cannot see that the new wording excludes code like the following:
>
>    INTEGER :: n
>    READ (UNIT = n+1, IOSTAT = n)

The interp does not modify the first sentence of paragraph 5 as previously 
modified by Corrigendum 2, which remains:
  "The value of a specifier in an input/output statement shall not depend on the 
definition or evaluation of any other specifier in the io-control-spec-list or 
inquire-spec-list in that statement."

(The interp only modifies - essentially by adding to - the second sentence of 
paragraph 5 as it resulted from Corrigendum 2.)

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.