From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Tue Feb 7 11:05:07 1995 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA18139 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:05:54 +0100 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Tue, 07 Feb 95 11:05:26 GMT Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:03:49 +0000 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13288; Tue, 7 Feb 95 11:05:07 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 11:05:07 GMT From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9502071105.AA13288@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: bleikamp@mozart.convex.com Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.686) X3J3 letter ballot for 006 items Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Yes without comments on all items except for the following: 173 N Reid I do not see why it is only storage association that is of concern we have to worry about partial overlaps. Also the edit should be expressed in the singular and has other editorial defects. Here is a suggested replacement edit: EDIT: Add the following sentence to the end of section 13.2.2 [183:35]: "There must be no association between any part of an actual argument associated with an INTENT (OUT) and INTENT (INOUT) dummy argument and any part of any other actual argument, except that the FROM and TO arguments for the MVBITS subroutine may be the same." 173 N Reid The wording of the edit is clumsy. I suggest: EDIT: Section 12.4.1.2 [173:35-36] replace the second paragraph by: "If the interface of the dummy procedure is explicit, the characteristics listed in 12.2 of the associated actual procedure must be the same as the corresponding characteristics of the dummy procedure."