From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Fri Feb 17 11:05:57 1995 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA11433 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:06:10 +0100 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:05:56 GMT Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:04:34 +0000 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03366; Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:05:57 GMT Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:05:57 GMT From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9502171105.AA03366@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: defect item 173 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 How can I let this drop when I have the combined forces of the two Riches and Janice ranged against me? Let me try another tack. This is very closely related to 12.5.2.9. Indeed, it might be argued that in view of 12.5.2.9, no edit is needed. The wording there [180:3-4] is: [180:3-4] No action may be taken that affects the value or availability of the entity or any part of it, except through the dummy argument. [180:36-38] Note that if there is a partial or complete overlap between the actual arguments associated with two different dummy arguments of the same procedure, the overlapped portions must not be defined, redefined, or become undefined during the execution of the procedure. Surely, it would help the reader to use the same form of words for the new text. Incidently, I looked in 1539 for any use of the term "storage association" for arrays with a partial overlap. I could not find one. Can you? Best wishes, JOhn.