From JANSHEP@torolab2.vnet.ibm.com Mon Mar 21 14:24:31 1994
Received: from vnet.ibm.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA19607
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>); Tue, 22 Mar 1994 01:27:25 +0100
Message-Id: <199403220027.AA19607@dkuug.dk>
Received: from TOROLAB2 by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9290;
   Mon, 21 Mar 94 19:24:31 EST
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 19:24:31 EST
From: "Janice Shepherd" <JANSHEP@torolab2.vnet.ibm.com>
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Corrigendum 2 ballot
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

John Reid wrote:


>|_|_| |x| 000097 Specification expression

>Edits in a corrigendum and have to be applied manually by the reader.
>Therefore wholesale rewrites of paragraphs should be avoided unless the
>need is absolutely overwhelming. These should be defered to the 95
>revision. Is anyone being seriously misled by the present wording?

  The change in the wording makes clear that the following example
is not valid. This would not be clear from the words as originally
written in the standard.

    Subroutine X(I)
      integer aa(I)
      data ilocal /ubound(aa)/
      ...
    end subroutine

The upper bound of 'aa' is not assumed -- 'aa' was not written as
aa(:) nor aa(1:*), nor is 'aa' a pointer or an allocatable array.
The next text clarifies that this example is not valid.

Janice C. Shepherd
IBM Canada, Toronto Lab.