(j3.2006) request for interpretation
Wed Apr 2 17:45:53 EDT 2008
Aleksandar Donev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 April 2008 12:33, Bill Long wrote:
>>rules that require distinguishable specifics have been converted into
>>Constraints. Thus, while some lax compliers can argue conformance now,
>>the new standard will require that they diagnose the error in the
>>example code you posted.
> Bill, did you read Kurt's post? The essential point he made is that those
> rules specifically do not apply to specifics that come in through a generic
> identifier via host association. What are you citing as a counter-argument?
Bill is correct that Section 16.2.3 of the Fortran 2003 standard forbids
the presence of such conflicting interfaces. Section 12.4.4 clearly is
written to allow for such conflicting interfaces, but there is nothing
in that section that modifies the sense of Section 16.3.2.
More information about the J3