From whitlock@bugsy.zko.dec.com  Mon Apr 30 16:10:27 2001
Received: from zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (zmamail05.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.105])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA47309
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:10:26 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from whitlock@bugsy.zko.dec.com)
Received: by zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (Postfix, from userid 12345)
	id 512EB66A1; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailrelay01.cce.cpqcorp.net (mailrelay01.cce.cpqcorp.net [16.47.68.171])
	by zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382C963E9
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mailrelay01.cce.cpqcorp.net (Postfix, from userid 12345)
	id C84A62BF; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from bugsy (bugsy.zko.dec.com [16.31.64.14])
	by mailrelay01.cce.cpqcorp.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 684E63E2
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:06:51 -0400
Message-Id: <01043010065106@bugsy.zko.dec.com>
From: whitlock@bugsy.zko.dec.com (Stan Whitlock (603)884-2011 ZKO2-3/N30)
To: JKR@rl.ac.uk, SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re:  (SC22WG5.2052) Revised draft response for interp. 31
X-VMS-To: JOHN_REID,SC22WG5@DKUUG.DK,CC

John,

Funny how that F95 text at [200:30-32] is already highlighted in my
copy.

I agree with Henry's remarks and your alternative response for interp
#31.

Thanks			/Stan

**********************************************************************

From:	SMTP%"jkr@rl.ac.uk" 30-APR-2001 06:04:04.30
To:	SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subj:	(SC22WG5.2052) Revised draft response for interp. 31

WG5,
    Here is a revised draft response for interp. 31. Comments,
please, before I send this to J3.

John Reid. 

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

Alternative response

ANSWER: 

It was intended that this program be standard conforming.  The dummy
argument is associated with the target of the actual argument, as the
text from [200:30-32] quoted above states.  In this case, the actual
argument has a valid target and the target is definable.

The edit adds additional text to make this clear. 
  
EDIT: 

On page 200, subclause 12.4.1.1, at the end of the paragraph that
starts 'If the dummy argument is not a pointer' [200:32], change
'target.' to 'target; references elsewhere in this standard to "the
actual argument associated with the dummy argument" are references to
the target'.