Re: test for the MOD() intrinsic

[Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>]

Richard E Maine wrote:
> Ah... Additional data. Though this isn't listed in 1.6.1, it *IS* 
> listed in 1.6.2 as an f90 incompatibility. This implies to me that f95 
> and f2003 are the same, but f90 (and earlier) were different. I take 
> that as additional evidence that this must have been changed in an f95 
> interp. Hmm. I've got to run pretty quickly, but lets see if I can 
> track down the interp. That would have to be one with edits, which 
> would mean it would show up in a corrigendum, which makes it a lot 
> simpler to find as there are only 2 or 3 f95 corrigenda...
>
> Yep, there it is in f95 corrigendum 2, resulting from f95 interp 87. 
> And yes, that same corrigendum also adds it as an f95/f90 
> incompatibility.

Are draft versions of these corrigenda available online, in a similar 
fashion to the draft version of the standard?  I recall having looked 
for copies before, but not having had any luck, and it sounds like from 
this exchange that they'd be quite useful to have.

For that matter, are the interps available?

Thanks,
- Brooks