From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Fri Mar 18 14:49:49 1994
Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA10172
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Fri, 18 Mar 1994 15:52:32 +0100
Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP;
   Fri, 18 Mar 94 14:52:20 GMT
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) 
          id <00322-0@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>; Fri, 18 Mar 1994 14:48:51 +0000
Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04951;
          Fri, 18 Mar 94 14:49:49 GMT
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 14:49:49 GMT
From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
Message-Id: <9403181449.AA04951@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Corrigendum/71
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


Further to my message of yesterday, I have second thoughts re item 71.
My little test was not relevant to the interpretation since the
variable a was being both accessed and declared, which everyone agrees
is wrong. The question is whether you can declare a common block while
accessing some of its variables by different names.  The test I should
have used is

   module com
      common/reid/a
   end module com

   program main
      use com
      common/reid/b
      a = 1
      write(*,*)b
   end program main

This is accepted by 4 of the 5 compilers to which I have access. 

The standard does not allow this case unless the item 71 edit is
applied.  I do not like the idea of making a technical change to the
standard, but this does seem rather harmless, given that

   module coma
      common/reid/a
   end module coma

   module comb
      common/reid/b
   end module comb

   program main
      use coma
      use comb
      a = 1
     write(*,*)b
   end program main

is acceptable


Best wishes,
John.