Page 1 of 1 J3/05-263 Subject: Purely editorial? From: Van Snyder Date: 2005 September 1 ========================================================================== [16:10-11] The sentence "In addition, data objects of derived type may be used as procedure arguments and function results, and may appear in input/output lists" appears not to do anything useful. Delete it (or add intrinsic assignment to the list). ========================================================================== [17:1] Delete because it's wrong. ========================================================================== What is the point of saying "any intrinsic or derived type" instead of simply "any type"? Are there any types other than intrinsic and derived? I think not. [17:24] Delete "intrinsic type or derived" [18:20] Delete "intrinsic type or derived" Replace the edit for [75:7] from 05-201r2: Within the first paragraph of 5.1.1.1 TYPE replace "a derived" by "any". [106:4-5] Delete "It applies to both intrinsic and derived types." At least replace "both intrinsic and derived" by "all". [193:8+8-10] What does the sentence "However ... above rule" mean? What "above rule"? Delete the sentence. [197:7] "intrinsic or derived types" => "any type". [197:38-39] "intrinsic or derived types" => "any type". ========================================================================== [49:9] The label definition for Note 4.25 is here. Move it into the note. [55:0+2] The reference to Note 4.25 quotes its subclause number instead of its note number because the label is defined incorrectly. ========================================================================== [286:34] The "or" on this line is the second one in the sentence. Insert a comma before it. Or reword the sentence to something like "... argument with the INTENT(OUT), INTENT(INOUT), or POINTER attribute." ========================================================================== [313:21] The description of VECTOR_A says "shall be of numeric type... or of logical type. The description of VECTOR_B begins "shall be of numeric type..." but then switches to "type logical." Can we say "logical type" instead of "type logical" in the description of VECTOR_B? ========================================================================== [354:25-26] It's unfortunate that 354:26 begins with a right parenthesis. Removing the ~ after the A in both sample references should repair it. ========================================================================== [447:24] Split into separate lines because the syntax is not consistent with R451.