(j3.2006) Seven papers from 204 that were not processed.

[Van Snyder]

Seven papers from 204 were not processed.

14-137r1 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
meeting 204."  It would remove a restriction on VALUE dummy arguments in
pure procedures.  Does it create a new feature?

14-154r3 was reported in the minutes for Friday as being "in the post
for the next meeting."  This is interp F08/0107.

14-161 was reported in the minutes for Monday and Wednesday as "No
further action."  It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this
revision" or "Not at meeting 204."  It would impose a restriction that
the value of CPTR in a reference to C_F_POINTER not be the C address of
an entity proscribed as a pointer target in a pure procedure.  Does it
create a new feature?

14-169 was referred to HPC on Monday, but in minutes for Friday it says
"is still be processed - there will be no action on 14-169 at this
meeting."  14-248 is a revised version, with edits referring to
14-007r2.

14-170 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
meeting 204."  It addresses a question about subobjects and pointers.
Does it address a non-problem, or did we simply not have time to process
it?

14-171 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
meeting 204."  This addressed what appear to be numerous improper uses
of "subcomponent."

14-172 was reported in the minutes for Wednesday as "will be
reconsidered as an interp".

14-169 has already been recast as paper 14-248 for 205.  Which of the
others should be updated?