From jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk  Thu Feb  8 12:23:27 2001
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 MAA34238
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:23:27 +0100 (CET)
	(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 LAA00515
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:23:26 GMT
Received: (from jkr@localhost)
	by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA10196
	for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:25:12 GMT
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:25:12 GMT
From: John Reid <jkr@rl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <200102081125.LAA10196@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1995) Draft response to iterpretation 10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 
> The proposed draft response has the drawback that it makes namelist
> input ambiguous.  Consider the program
> 
>       PROGRAM MAIN
>         TYPE REC
>           LOGICAL T
>         END TYPE
>         TYPE(REC) :: L
>         CHARCATER*20 STR(5)
>         LOGICAL T
>         NAMELIST/ABC/L, STR, T
>         READ (*, NML=ABC)
>         WRITE (*, NML=ABC)
>       END
> 
> Suppose this program is presented the input
> 
> &ABC
>   STR = L% L% T = T
> /
> 
> Under the proposed draft response, the input could be equivalent to
> 
> STR(1) = 'L%'
> STR(2) = 'L%'
> T = .TRUE.
> 
> or it could be equivalent to
> 
> STR(1) = 'L%'
> L%T = .TRUE.

Bob and I have corresponded privately. He agrees that he overlooked
the requirement that namelist character constants must be delimited
(see bottom of page 180 of the standard).

Best wishes,

John Reid.