(j3.2006) Does this need an interp?

[malcolm at nag-j.co.jp]

Van wrote
> 15.3.3 at [466:1ff] does not define C_PTR and C_FUNPTR to have the BIND
> attribute or to be sequence types.

Right, this is the subject of an ongoing interp.

Van further remarks that we do not rule out of interoperability
> other types that don't have the BIND attribute.

That is very true.

> Do we need an interp (or interps) to clarify this?

Well, we could piggy-back that question on the C_PTR/C_FUNPTR one,
but it does seem like a separate question.

It probably warrants a separate interp.  I don't believe the original
authors of C interop intended to allow any type a processor deemed to
be interoperable to be so (without it being some kind of extension),
but as it stands it certainly does not seem clear.

Cheers,
--
...............Malcolm at home.