(j3.2006) Does this need an interp?

malcolm at nag-j.co.jp malcolm
Fri May 4 19:32:29 EDT 2007

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.

...............Malcolm at home.

More information about the J3 mailing list