From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jan 15 10:18:22 2015 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 A635B35733E; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:18:22 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F553566B9 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:18:18 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:52061) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1YBgZG-0005oW-WW (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:18:18 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1YBgZF-0002iQ-Vu (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:18:17 +0000 Received: from [87.114.35.90] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 15 Jan 2015 09:18:17 +0000 Date: 15 Jan 2015 09:18:17 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Malcolm Cohen Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5417) RE: J3/14-279: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #32 revised - due 9-Jan-2015 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20150115065725.638E23587E4@www.open-std.org> References: <20150109170920.37FA9357222@www.open-std.org> <20150114193404.745C835733E@www.open-std.org> <20150115065725.638E23587E4@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 On Jan 15 2015, Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> >>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.) Oops. Yes. I misread the edits. So that query disappears. Thanks for the correction. Regards, Nick Maclaren.