(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5417) [ukfortran] RE: J3/14-279: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #32 revised - due 9-Jan-2015

[Malcolm Cohen]

Nick Maclaren writes:
>F08/0110
>
>(1): I agree with the intent, of course.
>
>I cannot see that the new wording excludes code like the following:
>
>    INTEGER :: n
>    READ (UNIT = n+1, IOSTAT = n)

The interp does not modify the first sentence of paragraph 5 as previously 
modified by Corrigendum 2, which remains:
  "The value of a specifier in an input/output statement shall not depend on the 
definition or evaluation of any other specifier in the io-control-spec-list or 
inquire-spec-list in that statement."

(The interp only modifies - essentially by adding to - the second sentence of 
paragraph 5 as it resulted from Corrigendum 2.)

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.