(j3.2006) Do we need an interp for this?

[Van Snyder]

On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 18:48 -0700, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> >There is no specification of the relationship of an associate name to
> >the intent specification of the selector, if the selector happens to be
> >a dummy argument.
> 
> Yes and no.  An associating entity does not have any INTENT attribute, but how 
> it may be used is affected by INTENT(IN).
> 
> >Do we need an interp for this,
> 
> I do not see why.
> 
> > or can we just fix it in the next
> >revision?  Maybe put it in section E of the 008?
> 
> There is nothing to fix.
> 
> 8.1.3.3p2 means that the associate-name for an INTENT(IN) selector is not 
> permitted to appear in a variable definition context.  This covers not just 
> INTENT(IN) but also selectors that are not variables.

I agree that this is enough.  I remember that we put in the words in
8.1.3.3p2, but I thought they were a constraint.  When I didn't see them
in C801, I assumed we'd changed something.

> Cheers,