From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jan 22 00:57:56 2016 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 89485358762; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:57:56 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81EE93566C1 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:57:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 81825 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2016 08:57:48 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2016 08:57:48 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Cohen Malcolm" To: "sc22wg5" References: <20160121203908.E18B235725F@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20160121203908.E18B235725F@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5640) Comment on Corrigendum 4 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:58:35 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk ... >[in places] Corrigendum 4 replaces "subcomponent" with "potential subobject >component" ... >slight inconsistency I see no inconsistency. We replaced the term for good reason. >I believe this aspect of Corrigendum 4 is correct, Yes. > but it does bear pondering. > >Does anybody disagree? Yes, I disagree that there is any issue here that is worth "pondering" in the context of the Corrigendum. Any "issues" have already been adequately discussed in the relevant interp requests. It is a waste of mental energy to attempt to reconstruct those interp requests from the definition of "potential subobject component". Cheers, -- ........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.