From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jan 22 01:05:43 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 16FB5358762; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:05:42 +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 E040C3566C1 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:05:40 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 15489 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2016 09:05:39 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2016 09:05:39 +0900 Message-ID: <2FBB2E3DA09649CC9A2A1522D69D5E4F@Maru10> From: "Cohen Malcolm" To: "sc22wg5" References: <20160121213038.CAD8E358651@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20160121213038.CAD8E358651@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5642) Another comment on Corrigendum 4 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:06:26 +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 >Another comment on Corrigendum 4 I do not think this is a comment on Corrigendum 4. >Is C1278a, as amended by Corrigendum 4, not yet correct? > > C1278a An INTENT(OUT) dummy argument of a pure procedure shall not be > polymorphic or have a polymorphic allocatable ultimate component. I agree that on the face of it, it would appear that we have not yet closed all the holes in purity. Another interp would seem to be required. Or since we have no chance of a Corrigendum 5, perhaps some more drastic action in the next revision. Cheers, -- ........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.