From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Fri Dec 17 17:51:38 1993
Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA28420
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Fri, 17 Dec 1993 18:49:32 +0100
Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP;
   Fri, 17 Dec 93 17:53:51 GMT
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) 
          id <26947-0@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>; Fri, 17 Dec 1993 17:51:39 +0000
Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12282;
          Fri, 17 Dec 93 17:51:38 GMT
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 17:51:38 GMT
From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
Message-Id: <9312171751.AA12282@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: 006 vote (revised)
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

I have revised my comments on items 87, 143, and 154 in the light of
messages from Malcolm and Janice. This list replaces my previous list.

John Reid. 


000 N Reid Item 4. is indeed redundant. It is also harmless. It can wait for
           the 95 revision.
           Item 5. The revised text is very harm to understand. I suggest:
           5. Page 245, section 14.1.2.5, in the second sentence [245:3]
            change 'It' to 'Outside the type definition, it'.

087 Y Reid There should be more explanation. There are no semantics
	   described in the standard for this "feature".  Leaving it in
	   the language inhibits the processor from diagnosing the
	   obvious mistake.

090 Y Reid For the edits, I prefer the usual form:
             after 'text' add 'new text'
           rather than the use of a dotted line.

131 Y Reid I see no need for item 6. The text of 143/46-48 is already 
           clear and unambiguous.

143 N Reid The text of the edit does not work because an intrinsic function
           always has an explicit interface. I suggest:

           EDIT: Add at the end of the first paragraph of 5.2.3 [49:31]:

           "A procedure with an implicit interface and public accessibility
           must explicitly be given the EXTERNAL attribute in the scoping
           unit of the module; if it is a function, its type must be
           explicitly declared in a type declaration statement there.

           An intrinsic procedure with public accessibility must explicitly
           be given the INTRINSIC attribute in the scoping unit of the module
           or be used as an intrinsic procedure there."
            

153 Y Reid For edit 5, the line no. should be 6.

154 N Reid If we are to allow a zero-sized substring in an
           equivalence, we need to know where it fits within the string.
           At the front seems the best and this is implied by the answer to
           question 2, but I see no text in the standard. I suggest that
           the edit be changed to:

	   EDIT: In section 14.6.3.2 [248:15], after the last sentence
	   in the second paragraph, add "Two zero-sized subobjects of
	   the same object are the same zero sized storage sequence;
           the successor is the object itself.".


155 N Reid The first three edits are appropriate for the 95 revision, 
           but are not necessary in the corrigendum. The two routes 
           through the syntax give the same result.

157 Y Reid Typo: couterintuitive

165 N Reid I agree with Bill Leonard. In view of 152:8-10, ne edit is needed.
            


----- End Included Message -----