To:         J3 Members                                       J3/16-267
From:       Van Snyder
Subject:    Comments on Clause 14
References: 16-007r2
Date: 2016 September 28

1. Edits
--------

[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.

[295:1 14.2.2p2] After "defined" insert "or declared".

[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."

[298:5 C1416] Delete "definitions of" before "derived type definitions"
{What's a "definition of a derived-type definition"?}

2. Questions and comments without edits
---------------------------------------

[296:25 14.2.2p11+] The syntax allows "USE, only:", i.e., without an
<only-list>.  The effect of doing so is not 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?