(j3.2006) badly worded semantics for the IMPORT statement
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.
More information about the J3