J3/03-271 Date: 11 Nov 2003 To: J3 From: Richard Maine Subject: Replies to 03-257,03-262,03-263,03-265,03-267 References: 03-257,03-262,03-263,03-265,03-267 This paper explains the actions proposed on the subject papers. 03-257 [3:28],[4:4],[4:37],[45],[60],[162],[275],[282],[306] Wordsmithing. Some cases are probably improvements in wording, but none are necessary. Several are for things unchanged since f95 or even f90. In some cases, the improvement is arguable or introduces inconsistencies elsewhere. [4:5],[78] - Grammatical changes that are arguable (or wrong). [72] - already adequately covered. Unchanged from f90/f95. [77],[85] - already adequately covered. [161] Value part is a spec change for something that isn't broken. Allocation status part is already covered in 16.4.1.5. (Association is established when executing the associate statement and remains associated throughout execution of the block; that precludes deallocation.) [411] This question is answered in Note 16.8 on the same page; it is hard to imagine a more explicit or direct statement than that note. However, the normative text at [411:5] does appear to contradict the note, so a fix is proposed for that. [423] yes (do the first fix). [14],[75],[269],[277],[453].[486] - yes 03-262 Yes. A minority of subgroup disagreed with this recommendation. Also, C438 could be more simply stated and C439 could just be deleted, but we don't propose those changes now. 03-263 This is not adequate reason for a change. However, see 03-267, which proposes the same change for a different reason. 03-265 Yes. 03-267 Part 4 and the edit on [347] are unnecessary spec changes. The edit on 348 is unnecessary. We could add arbitrary amounts of extra explanatory material; this does not correct an error. [162:20+] Agree that this corrects an error, though slightly diffferent wording is proposed.