(j3.2006) request for interpretation
Tue Apr 1 17:16:39 EDT 2008
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 13:42, Robert Corbett wrote:
> Kurt stated that he had written the text
> that is now in Section 18.104.22.168 specifically to allow this case.
OK, I seem to have missed Kurt's e-mail. I just went back and read it. I am of
course sure he is right. But I certainly cannot untangle how it all works
together (maybe he could explain please?).
On Tuesday 18 March 2008 11:50, Kurt W Hirchert wrote:
> In particular, we find in 22.214.171.124 that the rules from 16.2.3 about generic
> ambiguity are applied to specific interfaces declared in the scoping unit
> or made accessible by use association, but not to those potentially
> accessible through host association or an INTRINSIC declaration.
OK, that I see (in the latest draft):
"If the reference is consistent with a nonelemental reference to one of the
specific interfaces of a generic interface
that has that name and either is in the scoping unit in which the reference
appears or is made accessible by a
USE statement in the scoping unit, the reference is to the specific procedure
in the interface block that provides
that interface. The rules in 126.96.36.199.5 ensure that there can be at most one
such specific procedure."
But when I look in 188.8.131.52.5, I see:
"This subclause contains the rules that shall be satisfied by every pair of
specific procedures that have the same
generic identifier within a scoping unit."
As far as I can tell, SUBR1 and SUBR2 both have the same generic identifier
within subroutine S? Where is there a distinction between generics accessed
by USE association and those by host association?
Is there a compiler that actually implements what Kurt says was the intention?
More information about the J3