(j3.2006) Interp 64 question

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Mon Jan 22 12:40:47 EST 2007

I wrote:
> >Missing CONTAINS statement.

Bill Long said:
> Not missing, just intentionally not there.   The following are NOT type 
> bound procedures, they are <proc-component-def-stmt>s.

OK, they're object-bound procedures.

I wrote:
> >There is no "procedure declaration statement" in the above code.

Which is still true.

> I'm not sure I understand the last statement.

Well, maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at in the first
place?  You didn't exactly "show your working".

>   The intent of interp 64 
> was to change the wording in C1212 from  "<procedure-declaration-stmt>" 
> to "<procedure-declaration-stmt> or <interface-body>".

(I'm in Oxford this week, so I don't have my paper copy of the standard,
so it's a lot easier to get confused trying to read someone's mind while
riffling through virtual pages!)

> There are 
> interface bodies in the above example and that is the point, that the 
> intended change in the interp is problematic because  C1212 does apply 
> directly to <proc-component-def-stmt>s.

Well, now we're getting somewhere.
Though if I was trying to interpret standard text I'd want to have
a second and third and fourth look at it before deciding either that
it was right (and my intuition about what should be allowed was wrong)
or that it was in error.

But, this interp has already failed.  We already know it is in error.
Perhaps Bill is intending to submit a revised version?

I've said this before - if you are wanting to interpret the standard, 
depending on j3-meeting-passed but not j3-letter-ballot-passed interps
is risky enough, but how can you get anything from a failed interp?
It's already failed!  We ALREADY know that it is probably WRONG!

And sure, the proposed wrong edit is probably wrong for even more reasons
than were given in the letter ballot.  Didn't I say that last time someone
asked this kind of question of "known to be wrong" wording in a failed

........................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp), Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

More information about the J3 mailing list