(j3.2006) NAME= for internal procs
Richard E Maine
Wed Jan 10 13:03:05 EST 2007
On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Aleksandar Donev wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 08:02, Richard E Maine wrote:
>> My personal inclination would be that if internal procedures are
>> allowed to be interoperable, they should be like module procedures in
>> this regard, not requiring the NAME=.
> Internal procedures must NOT be allowed to have binding labels.
> This is
> clearly spelled in the paper---it simply cannot be implemented.
> There may be
> multiple "active" instances of the same internal proc so obviously
> cannot all have the same binding label.
Ah. Then that is a difference of substance between them and module
procedures. Ok. Sorry for butting in without having adequately read
the background material. I was obviously looking at a different issue
from the one actually in debate.
> So there are two choices:
Agree. I have no strong personal preference between those two choices.
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine at nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
More information about the J3