(j3.2006) badly worded semantics for the IMPORT statement

Robert Corbett Robert.Corbett
Wed Dec 5 02:39:34 EST 2007

Van Snyder wrote:

> Robert Corbett wrote:
>>I don't think J3 intended for it to be standard conforming.  From an
>>implementor's POV, I see no reason for the restriction.  Fortran 90
>>and later versions of Fortran require two or more compilation passes,
>>which makes the restriction unnecessary.  The restriction might be
>>there to enforce someone's idea of good style; otherwise, I see no
>>point to it.
> Isn't this controversy the definition of "an interp is needed?"

I don't see that there is a controversy.  Unless I misinterpreted
Bill's initial response, I agree with Bill as to what the language
in the standard regarding the IMPORT statement was intended to say.
I don't think it says what was intended, which is why I asserted
that it is "badly worded."  I assume it comes as no surprise to
anyone on the committee that the Fortran standard contains some
badly worded sections and some pointless restrictions.

Bob Corbett

More information about the J3 mailing list