From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Sep 2 22:48:22 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h82KmM8o093621 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:48:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h82KkiCp093606 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:48:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:43:38 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.20.211]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:46:43 -0700 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 201) id EF34B356FE; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <16213.430.802366.412936@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:46:38 -0700 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.2954) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD In-Reply-To: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> References: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov writes: > > In correspondence before meeting 165, Bill Long noticed that there's no > prohibition against deallocating an allocatable , or changing > the pointer association status of a pointer , inside a SELECT > TYPE or ASSOCIATE construct (8.1.4-5). > > I realize it's late -- maybe too late -- to do anything, but if we do > nothing now, we're almost certain to need to process an interpretation > request later. My personal opinion is that we are late enough that an interp request is a more appropriate venue. Getting the technical content of this right merits the full attention that an interp request gets, rather then the limited participation of informal email discussion. This has technical content. It isn't overly difficult technical content, but it is enough that I think it requires the due dilligence that it won't get via this route. The "vetting" subgroup isn't enough to judge technical content. Definitely IMO. P.S. Now that you mention it, I recall the email, but I don't recall it getting formally raised at mtg165. Sending an email to the list can be a good way to elicit some preliminary discussion (which there was som eof), but it isn't a substitute for an actual meeting paper. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain