(j3.2006) Questions about passed-object dummy argument

[Cohen Malcolm]

Your proposed replacement text does not have the same effect.

There is no case for mucking around with correct text.  It is very far 
indeed from "clarifying" as instead it makes a technical change (when the 
procedure is NOT elemental).

>If C1536 doesn't remind the reader that the procedure is necessarily 
>elemental,

and why should it, that is not particularly important.  C1536 says what it 
says.

A reader who has forgotten that passed-object dummy arguments must be scalar 
will soon be reminded when the compiler tells them.

> I don't see how stating the
>conclusion of reasoning that requires bringing together facts from two
>clauses separated by hundreds of pages introduces a problem.

There are potentially many unimportant conclusions like this one, we could 
probably quadruple the size of the standard by including them, without any 
adverse effect on compiler sizes!  Well, apart from taking up more of 
people's time reading the document.

The rest of your message I cannot understand as you are ascribing views to 
me that I expressed the opposite to in my first message.  Anyway I am done 
discussing technical changes or unnecessary and drastic rewordings as I have 
tons of things to do.

Cheers,
-- 
.............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.