From U9346503@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK Mon Apr 3 14:37:25 2000 Received: from Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk (isaiah.qub.ac.uk [143.117.143.16]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA42093 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:37:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from U9346503@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK) Received: from namtar.qub.ac.uk by Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk with SMTP-QUB (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:36:21 +0000 Received: from cladagh.cs.qub.ac.uk (cladagh.cs.qub.ac.uk [143.117.5.26]) by namtar.qub.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA11267; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:34:39 +0100 (BST) From: Niki Reid Reply-To: u9346503@qub.ac.uk To: John Reid Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Interpretation 003 In-Reply-To: <200003281248.OAA16155@dkuug.dk> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:38:36 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII John > Page 90, line 9. Add 'For the relational intrinsic operators with > character operands, the kind type parameters shall be the same'. I'm not totally sure about this one. This would lead to the paragraph ending P90(L9) to be: "For the character intrinsic operator //, the kind type parameters shall be the same. For the relational intrinsic operators with character operands, the kind type parameters must be the same." Which certainly clarifies the situation. My own humble inclination would be towards clarifying that specific kind rules are applied to ALL character operations (relational and otherwise): "For operations on character operands to be intrinsic 1. The intrinsic operator must be defined for character operands. (see table 7.1). 2. The kind type parameters must be the same." The other two edits look good to me: > Page 89, Table 7.1, penultimate line (89:38). Change > 'requiring' to 'with'. > Page 90, line 12. Delete 'and have the same kind type parameter value'. Hope this is of some help. Niki