(j3.2006) Not a perverse reading of C435 at all

John Reid John.Reid
Wed Apr 2 05:20:36 EDT 2014

Van Snyder wrote:

> Since we're not going to publish another corrigendum for Fortran 2008,
> do we need an interp, or can we take this as a "wart removal" work item?
> Revising C435 in this way would also require a compatibility note
> somewhere in subclause 1.6.

We have not made a definite decision that there will be no more 
corrigenda for Fortran 2008. It is just that this looks likely. I hope 
we can maintain the distinction between an interp (an ambiguity or 
unintended consequence) and a wart (an irregularity). Anyway, interps 
that have full J3 and WG approval can be added to the new standard 
without appearing in a corrigendum, if they reach this state in time.



More information about the J3 mailing list