(j3.2006) Did we intend this to be OK?

[Van Snyder]

Would the following associate statement be OK?

  associate ( a => x%y, b => a%z )

I can't find a prohibition against it.  If we want the answer to be
"No," we need one.  Something like

C802a (R804) An <object-name> or <data-ref> in a <selector> shall not be
an <associate-name> in the same <associate-stmt>.

If we want the answer to be "Yes," the <association>s need to be
considered left-to-right, which isn't specified.  Something like

C802a (R804) If an <object-name> or <data-ref> in a <selector> is an
<associate-name> in the same <associate-stmt>, the <association>
specifying that <associate-name> shall appear before the <association>
containing that <selector>.

Do we need to do one of these things?

Do we need an interp?

Can we take care of this at the next meeting, or do we need to do it
with a corrigendum to F2015?