From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Mon Sep 11 12:08:30 1995 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk (letterbox.rl.ac.uk [130.246.8.100]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA13736 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 12:08:06 +0200 Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 11:05:23 +0100 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17483; Mon, 11 Sep 95 11:08:09 BST Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 11:08:09 BST From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9509111008.AA17483@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: janshep@watson.ibm.com Subject: 006 ballot Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk I "vote" yes except for: 83 Ywc Reid In edit 3, the use of the term "specific intrinsic procedure" is misleading here since it has a precise and other meaning. It might have been OK immediately after the first paragraph of the section, where we say that each intrinsic is interpreted as a collection of specific procedures, but is not OK here. In any case, it is not needed. Here is a suggested revision of the edit: "If a generic name is the same as the name of a generic intrinsic procedure, the generic intrinsic procedure is not accessible if the procedures in the interface and the intrinsic procedure are not all functions or not all subroutines. If a generic invocation applies to both a specific procedure from an interface and an accessible generic intrinsic procedure, it is the specific procedure from the interface that is referenced." 175 N Reid I see no need for this to be a part of Corrigendum 3. Has anyone misinterpreted this term? It is perfectly proper as part of the Fortran 95 rewrite, however. 198 Ywc Reid In the last line of the edit, change "and" to "as for". This is better use of English and is clearer. Best wishes, John Reid.