(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5644) [ukfortran] Comment on Corrigendum 4

[Cohen Malcolm]

...
>[in places] Corrigendum 4 replaces "subcomponent" with "potential subobject 
>component"
...
>slight inconsistency

I see no inconsistency.  We replaced the term for good reason.

>I believe this aspect of Corrigendum 4 is correct,

Yes.

> but it does bear pondering.
>
>Does anybody disagree?

Yes, I disagree that there is any issue here that is worth "pondering" in 
the context of the Corrigendum.  Any "issues" have already been adequately 
discussed in the relevant interp requests.  It is a waste of mental energy 
to attempt to reconstruct those interp requests from the definition of 
"potential subobject component".

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