(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4535) Provisional result of WG5 interps ballot 1.

[Van Snyder]

I withdrew my objection to F08/0010 yesterday.

On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 09:15 -0700, John Reid wrote:
> 
> F08/0010 
> Cohen comment
> Van's assertion that the "argument" parts of the edits is covered by 
> 12.5.2.13p1(1) is mistaken - 12.5.2.13p1(1) does not cover the case of
> a subobject of an allocatable being argument associated, and (3) does
> not cover the case when the object has the TARGET attribute (that is
> explicitly excluded). Deleting those parts would change my vote to NO.
> (There is some scope for wordsmithing to avoid precisely the cases
> that can be proven by theorem to be covered by various existing bits
> of 12.5.2.13, but in my view this would make the edits more
> complicated to no good purpose, so I would probably still want to vote
> NO if such changes were made.)
> 
> Snyder NO vote
> The "argument" parts of the edits are not necessary; they are covered
> by 12.5.2.13p1(1) and (3).  We should have imposed a similar
> requirement for construct association, but did not, so the remainder
> of the edits are germane.
>