From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Mon Sep 18 12:00:55 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 MAA14001 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:00:51 +0200 Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:00:07 +0100 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25799; Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:00:43 BST Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:00:43 BST From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9509181000.AA25799@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: 006 vote Janice has pursuaded me to support 175. Here, hopefully, is my final "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 Ywc Reid It would be helpful if the need for this change is explained in the ANSWER. I suggest: ANSWER:A constant specification expression is a specificiation expression that is also a constant expression. An edit is supplied to define this term. The edit is need to make it clear that it is not sufficient for the value of the specification expression to be fixed. For example, if IC is a named constant with value 0 and I is a dummy argument, IC*I always has the value 0, but this is not a constant specification expression. 179 N Reid This is an unnecessary technical change to Fortran 90, as explained by Malcolm Cohen. 198 Ywc Reid In the last line of the edit, change "and" to "as for". This is better use of English and is clearer.