ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1770 

                 Result of the interpretations ballot 6, N1765

Key for the Result line:
     Y Vote passes unconditionally.
     C Vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments and reasons 
       and making no change that alters the technical content.
     N Vote fails. Returned to J3 for further work. 
     

           F95/ F95/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/  
           0074 0102 0049 0073 0074 0075 0076 0077 0081 0082  
Gorelik      Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   Y
Ingrassia         C
Long         C    Y    Y    Y    C    Y    Y    Y    Y   Y       
Muxworthy    C    Y    Y    C    C    Y    Y    Y    Y   Y     
Reid         Y    Y    C    C    C    Y    Y    C    Y   Y     
Sleightholme Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   Y      
Snyder       C    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    C    Y    Y   C       
Xia          Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   Y     
Result       Y    C    C    Y    C    Y    Y    C    Y   Y  

           F95/ F95/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/ F03/  
           0087 0098 0099 0102 0109 0111 0113 0114 0117  
Gorelik      Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y
Long         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    C    C    Y        
Muxworthy    Y    Y    Y    C    Y    Y    Y    C    Y         
Reid         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    C    Y        
Sleightholme Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y        
Snyder       C    Y    Y    Y    Y    C    Y    Y    C       
Xia          Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y     
Result       Y    Y    Y    C    Y    C    C    C    C     

  
Comments and reasons for NO votes

...............................................................................


F95/0074

Muxworthy
There is a trivial typo in the answer: 5-0 should be 5-9.

Long
I agree with David Muxworthy that 5-0 should be 5-9.

Van Snyder
I'm pleased we reached the opposite conclusion in 2008.


F95/0102
Ingrassia
We know what we meant, but a more casual reader of this document may 
have more trouble.
    I suggest that we make our conventions a little more explicit by 
changing the numbering of the interp against F2003 to F95/0102/F2003 
("interp originally filed against F95 but interpreted against F2003").  
Or instead add some other aid to the reader e.g. an explicit comment 
that all EDITS are against F2003.
    N1764 should drop the Note "would go in F95 Corrigendum 3 if there 
were one" from the key.  Nothing is annotated W now and nothing should 
be.


F03/0049

Reid
Corrigendum 3 has an edit for the same place. I think this edit should come 
before the Corrigendum 3 edit.


F03/0073

Muxworthy
If this interp is accepted, consideration should be given to adding this
example and answer to annex C.11.2 at [524:43+].

Reid
David Muxworthy's comment refers to 09-007, not to Fortran 2003. 


F03/0074

Muxworthy
In the new text, '(15.1)' should be '(15.1.1)' for consistency with
existing references to 'C character kind', for example at [272:7]
and [416:14].

Reid
The definition of C character kind is in 15.1.1. I think it is overkill to
include the reference in all three places. Just in the first place would be
better.


F03/0076

Van Snyder
I'm pleased we reached the opposite conclusion in 2008.


F03/0077

Reid
The final edit should be 
[436:36] After "a named array" insert
  "or an array component of a structure, with no subscript list."


F03/0082

Van Snyder
I'm pleased we reached the opposite conclusion in 2008.


F03/0087

Van Snyder
I'm pleased we removed 04-007:C1255 in 2008.


F03/0102

Muxworthy
The recommendation that a new bullet point be added to subclause 16.6.6
to clarify matters has not yet been acted on.


F03/0111

Van Snyder
The answer doesn't address the submitter's contention that
elemental assignments are expanded into scalar assignments before
consideration whether they are defined or intrinsic.  Nothing wrong with
the edits, however.


F03/0113

Long
In the EDIT for [187:10+] C908a, replace "shall be have" with "shall
have".


F03/0114

Muxworthy
To be pedantic, 'EXISTS' in the answer for lines [210:18] and [212:24]
should be 'EXIST'.

Long
I agree with David Muxworthy that EXISTS should be EXIST.

Reid
Delete the first line of the EDITS section: "Al edits are against 04-007."
since it has a typo and is redundant. 


F03/0117

Van Snyder
Making the whole file undefined seems a bit harsh.  Couldn't
this have been "the record being written when the program is
terminated?"