(j3.2006) NAME= for internal procs

[Richard E Maine]

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  
> they
> 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