(j3.2006) Interp 64 question

[Richard E Maine]

On Jan 22, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

> Bill Long said:
...
>     procedure(sub1),pointer,pass(passed)::ptr1
>     procedure(sub2),pointer,pass(passed)::ptr2
>     procedure(sub2),pointer,pass::ptr3
   [remaining code elided]
>> If I read the current state of interp 64 (not yet passed) it seems  
>> the
>
> When I read interp 64, it has nothing to say on the issue.
>
> There is no "procedure declaration statement" in the above code.

Well, not for sub1 or sub2 anyway, which are what matter. I recently  
answered a very similar question on the standard somewhere else  
(either in comp.lang.fortran or in email from gfortran or g95 folk -  
I forget which), so if I gave them a bum steer, I'd like to know. But  
my reading is that the "procedure declaration statement" bit is meant  
literally. It doesn't mean any old way of declaring the interface of  
a procedure, but specifically doing it with a procedure declaration  
statement. The wording of the standard is slightly confusing because  
there are 2 levels of procedure declaration statements referred to -  
the ones as above declaring ptr1-3, and the possible (but non- 
existent in this case) ones declaring sub1-2. But I think one can  
work past the confusion if you read carefully.

Seemed to me that the point was to avoid circular dependence between  
procedure declaration statements. The same kind of dependence doesn't  
come up when one of the declarations is an interface body instead of  
a procedure declaration statement.

-- 
Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine at nasa.gov       |  experience comes from bad judgment.
                             |        -- Mark Twain