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

[Robert Corbett]

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