From owner-sc22wg5 Mon Nov 26 18:43:06 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 SAA53924 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:43:05 +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 RAA18075 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:43:04 GMT Received: (from jkr@localhost) by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA24651 for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:45:27 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:45:27 GMT From: John Reid Message-Id: <200111261745.RAA24651@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Results of the ballot on Corrigendum 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear WG5, Here is my draft of the paper with the results of the ballot on Corrigendum 2. I have corrected the Corrigendum itself and am sending you PostScript (N1472) in another message. Please let me know within 3 days if you find any mistakes or omissions in this paper or (more importantly) in the Corrigendum itself. If anyone needs PDF, please ask me. Best wishes, John. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5-N1471 Results of the ballot on Corrigendum 2 John Reid, 26 November 2001 Dedo n Kruyt y Li yc Long yc Maine y Meadows y Morgan y Muxworthy n Whitlock y ........................................................... I have amended Corrigendum 2 (see N1472) in response to all the comments and reasons for no votes. Since all the items in the ballot on interpretations passed (see N1470), there is no need for any deletions. The amended Corrigendum therefore passes unanimously. ........................................................... REASONS FOR NO VOTES Muxworthy The edits from interpretation 95 are missing from the draft corrigendum. The edit from interpretation 97 is incorrectly labelled 95 (although that will not affect the text of the final version). Otherwise the draft corrigendum corresponds with the agreed interpretations. Dedo I agree with the observation of David Muxworthy. If this is fixed, i will change my vote to YES. JKR response: I agree and have made this change. COMMENTS Bill Long, Cray In the first line of the text for the edit to Page 215, the quote "may be the same variables" should be "may be the same variable". JKR response: I agree and have made this change. Kelvin Li, XL Fortran Compiler Development, IBM Toronto Lab We have two minor comments on the Corrigendum 2. Page 48, Subclause 5.1 Change "object-name" to italic form. Page 258, Subclause 13.14.74 In line 2 of page 258, delete "If P .ne. 0,". ("the" is not in the text of the standard) JKR response: I agree and have made these changes. Van Snyder (in the ballot on interpretations) Page 160. Insert "a" after "or" in the edit. JKR response: I agree and have made this change.