J3/16-267r1 To: J3 From: Van Snyder & Malcolm Cohen Subject: Comments on Clause 14 Date: 2016 October 11 1a. Edits accepted [298:5 C1416] Delete "definitions of" before "derived type definitions" {What's a "definition of a derived-type definition"?} 1b. Edits rejected [293:15] 14.1p3] Delete the paragraph. There is no interpretation of the use of a program name. There's no point to prohibiting the impossible. REJECTED: This is useful to state outright as a simple prohibition. [295:1 14.2.2p2] After "defined" insert "or declared". REJECTED: Unnecessary. [296:10 14.2.2p8] The first sentence, viz., "An ultimate entity is a module entity that is not accessed by use association." is confusing. If one has a module A in which a module entity E is defined or declared, and a module B in which it is accessed from module A by use association, but module C does not access it from module B, is it an ultimate entity? Replace it with "An entity that is defined or declared in a module, but not accessed in that module by use association from another module, is an ultimate entity of that module." REJECTED: Already correct as is, this would raise questions about what we mean elsewhere. 2. Questions and comments without edits [296:25 14.2.2p11+] The syntax allows "USE, only:", i.e., without an . The effect of doing so is not described. RESPONSE: The effect is described in p5. It is not interesting, or particularly useful, but it is described. [298:10 14.3p2] What does "all storage units in the common block sequence shall be specified" mean? Does it mean they have to be declared in a COMMON statement? Isn't this implied by the requirement that named common blocks are required to have the same storage size in all scoping units? RESPONSE: This does appear to be redundant, but is harmless and it is not worth editing an obsolescent feature. ===END===