From jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk  Thu Mar 30 13:10:11 2000
Received: from nameserv.rl.ac.uk (nameserv.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.129])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA25692
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:10:10 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk)
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk [130.246.8.20])
	by nameserv.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA19998
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:10:09 +0100
Received: (from jkr@localhost)
	by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14286
	for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:11:13 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:11:13 +0100 (BST)
From: John Reid <J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <200003301111.MAA14286@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Revised proposal for Interpretation 001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you for all the comments. My conclusion is that there 
should be an extra sentence in the standard to clarify the 
situation. I have revised my proposal to J3 to include this.

John Reid. 

...............................................

Date: 30th March 2000
To: J3
From: John Reid
Subject: Interpretation 001

Here are drafts for the ANSWER and EDITS sections of 001. They are
based on the email from Henry Zongaro. Also, I propose that the
addendum be removed. 

ANSWER:
The implied-DO variable is not visible to the using program.  
14.1.3 Statement Entities states, in part, that

     The name of a variable that appears as the DO variable of an
     implied-DO in a DATA statement or an array constructor has a scope
     of the implied-DO list.  It has the type and type parameter that it
     would have if it were the name of a variable in the scoping unit
     that includes the DATA statement or array constructor and this type
     must be integer.

The words "would have if it were" were intended to convey
the idea that the existence of an array constructor or data implied-DO
variable does not actually cause an associated variable in the scoping unit
to come into existence.

Also, the following text appears in the same section (281:12-14):

     If the name of a global or local entity accessible in the scoping unit of
     a statement is the same as the name of a statement entity in that
     statement, the name is interpreted within the scope of the statement
     entity as that of the statement entity.

The word "If" here implies that there need not be any such
global or local entity with the same name as that of the statement entity.
The edit makes this clear. 

EDIT: 
Page 280, Clause 14.1.3, at the end of the first paragragh (280:44) add:

   The appearance of a name as the DO variable of an implied-DO in a
   DATA statement or an array constructor is not an implicit
   declaration of a variable whose scope is the scoping unit that
   contains the statement.