(j3.2006) Another cross-reference

[Malcolm Cohen]

Hi folks,

I was looking at the text for atomic subroutines the other day, and noticed that although there is a subclause entitled ?Atomic subroutines? which goes into all the gory details, the defined term ?atomic subroutine? does not cross-reference it.

I am minded to add ?(16.5)? at the end of the atomic subroutine term definition, just as a random editorial improvement.  If there are any doubts or objections to me doing that, speak now...

Cheers,
-- 
..........................Malcolm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20171028/d6d6e796/attachment.html>