(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5541) [Straw ballot on interps]

[Van Snyder]

Yes  No   Number     Title
-Y-  --- F08/0105   Is the ASYNCHRONOUS attribute allowed with the
                    VALUE attribute?
-C-  --- F08/0110   Interdependence of specifier values in input/output
                    statements
-Y-  --- F08/0115   ASYNCHRONOUS and argument passing
-Y-  --- F08/0116   Interoperable procedures
-Y-  --- F08/0117   TARGET and coindexed arguments
-C-  --- F08/0118   Subobject of variable in variable definition context
-Y-  --- F08/0119   Branching to END BLOCK and END CRITICAL
-Y-  --- F08/0120   Is the name of a procedure pointer a local identifier?
-Y-  --- F08/0121   Add to introduction defined operations in specification
                    exprs
-C-  --- F08/0122   Types with coarray components
-Y-  --- F08/0123   SPACING intrinsic
-Y-  --- F08/0124   Coindexed object with polymorphic subcomponent
-Y-  --- F08/0126   Can cobounds be referenced in the same type
                    declaration?
-Y-  --- F08/0127   May an initial line begin with a semicolon?
-C-  --- F08/0129   Is CLASS(type) required to refer to a prior type
                    definition?
-Y-  --- F08/0130   Does coarray allocation sync even with stopped
                    images?
-Y-  --- F08/0131   Are the changes to C_LOC in the 2010 revision
                    intentional?
-Y-  --- F08/0132   Can a procedure pointer be declared with an
                    interface block?
-Y-  --- F08/0133   Is unallocated actual associated with
                    nonallocatable dummy OK?
-Y-  --- F08/0134   <stat-variable> in an image control statement
-C-  --- F08/0135   Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy
                    undefinable?
-Y-  --- F08/0136   Argument correspondence with VALUE and
                    ASYNCHRONOUS
-Y-  --- F08/0137   Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with
                    element size zero

Comments:

F08/0110
I agree with John's improvement to the edit for [243:5-7 9.12p6]

F08/0118
I agree with John's suggestion to remove the statement label in the
question.  In the original submission (14-240) there were four labeled
statements that were referenced by the text of the question.  When that
was reduced to one statement (14-240r1) the label should have been
removed.  Should 14-240 be listed in the history?  I don't think it got
to /INTERP before 14-240r1.

The edits might be slightly improved by replacing "the <associate-name>
shall not" with "neither the <associate-name> nor any subobject of the
<associate-name> shall" rather than "the <associate-name> or any
subobject of the <associate-name> shall not" at [170:19] and [184:14],
and nearly the same thing without syntax font and the hyphen at
[171:12].

F08/0122
I agree with John's suggestion to improve the editor's instructions.

F08/0129
The position of the edit should be [10-007r1:52:6+ 4.3.1.2p1+] or
[12-007:52:6+ 4.3.1.2p1+], not [12-007:6+ 4.3.1.2p1+].

F08/0135
I agree with John's observation concerning coordination with Corrigendum
1, and his suggested revised edit.