From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jan 29 08:13:51 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 1549C9EB0E8; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:13:50 +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 8D1AB356A06 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:13:42 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 96205 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2016 16:13:40 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2016 16:13:40 +0900 Message-ID: <9428DA0D76DE496FA8A1ACE022E1C5C8@Maru10> From: "Cohen Malcolm" To: "WG5" References: <20160121143417.3C8EF358651@www.open-std.org><20160128084819.5A04435852E@www.open-std.org> <20160128130450.3498C3572EC@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20160128130450.3498C3572EC@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5657) Straw ballot on second draft corrigendum4 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:14:36 +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 This would be a technical change to the result of interpretation F08/0142. I do not think we can do that at this time. Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: erik@forcheck.nl Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 9:38 PM To: 'WG5' Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5657) Straw ballot on second draft corrigendum4 >Please answer the following question "Is N2095, with the references and >notes removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication as >Corrigendum 4 for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways. > >1) Yes. >2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. Yes, but I recommend the following changes. >3) No, for the following reasons. >4) Abstain. CHANGES: Subclause 11.2.3 In constraint C1113, after "shall be the name of a nonintrinsic module" insert "that declares a separate module procedure". Change to: In constraint C1113, after "shall be the name of a nonintrinsic module" insert "that declares a separate module procedure of which the separate module procedure is not present". Reason: If the implementation of the separate module procedure is in the module there is also no need for a submodule. Erik Kruyt Forcheck b.v. _______________________________________________ ukfortran mailing list http://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran -- ........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.