From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed May 27 10:29:20 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 AED9035885B; Wed, 27 May 2015 10:29:20 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5EE356F42
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 10:29:14 +0200 (CEST)
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 t4R8T7ow011034
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 17:29:11 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <A98C720E5E8349FD864D14036BB5E673@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20150526222707.E035535859B@www.open-std.org><20150526224650.5BCED3586DF@www.open-std.org><20150527002750.5E217358852@www.open-std.org> <20150527010756.5A594358852@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150527010756.5A594358852@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5509) (j3.2006) Assignment to zero-sized strings and arrays
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:29:07 +0900
Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
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

Van Snyder asks:
>Can we at least

Of course you can propose that as an editorial improvement.  Or propose deleting 
it.  Whatever.  I don't think it needs huge worldwide discussion as to what 
should be proposed.

I would recommend going back and rereading the Brainerd-Corbett discussion first 
though, before writing a paper.  Maybe there is some value in the statement, 
maybe not.  If not, delete it.  If there is, make it less misunderstandable 
somehow.

Myself, I am fundamentally apathetic.  Only, let's not do an "at least", if we 
are going to bother with it at all, let's get it right.  Whatever that is...

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

