(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4607) Corrigendum 1

[Robert Corbett]

I vote

2)  Yes, but I recommend the following changes.

on the question "Is N1893, with the references and notes
removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication
as Corrigendum 1 for Fortran 2008?"

I too wish to thank John and David for producing this
corrigendum.

Robert Corbett
representing Oracle America

------------------------------------------------------

I realize that the issues I am raising here should have
been raised earlier.  I do not expect any changes to be
made either now or subsequently as a result of these
comments.

In the first edit for the Introduction, the form of the
proposed sentence differs from the form of the sentences
already present in the cited paragraph.  The sentence

     An array or an object with a nonconstant length
     type parameter can have the VALUE attribute.

is more in line with the existing sentences.

In the second edit for the Introduction, the word "may"
in the proposed edit should, perhaps, be "can".

In the edits for Subclause 1.6.2, the final sentence of
the second new paragraph could be clearer.  The
alternative sentence

     This part of ISO/IEC specifies that an
     INTENT(OUT) argument of a pure subroutine
     shall not be polymorphic.

is clearer, though wordier.

There might be a problem with the edit for Subclause 5.5.
If a derived type definition appears in the specification
part of a BLOCK construct, the edits provided appear to
say that the scope of a data entity implicitly declared
in the derived type definition is the BLOCK construct.
The BLOCK construct would be the host of the scope that
is the derived type definition.