(j3.2006) J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #17 - due 25-Jul-2008

[Jim Xia]

j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org wrote on 07/24/2008 10:34:18 PM:

> COMMENT F03/0071:
> Jim claims that the argument is not at all "convincing", and wants
> us to declare that the procedure call is ambiguous. That is less
> than unconvincing: it is contrary to the expressed design principles
> of generic resolution which were intended to make it impossible to
> write an ambiguous generic reference. (Note: ambiguous means more
> than one procedure matches.)

OK, then I must have used the wrong term.  What I intended to say was the 
generic name (call q(ff)) can not be resolved to a specific name because 
there is no match for it.  A declaration statement like "external ff" only 
declares an EXTERNAL attribute for ff -- one may treat it as a subroutine. 
 Note this is indeed how we treat the declaration in the first example (in 
that we claim it *MUST* mean a subroutine).  Unless a declaration of type 
is declared somewhere else in the program, I'm not convinced we should 
deduce that ff "must" mean a function name in the 2nd case.

Cheers,

Jim Xia

RL Fortran Compiler Test
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7
Phone (905) 413-3444  Tie-line 313-3444
email: jimxia at ca.ibm.com
D2/YF7/8200 /MKM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20080725/341de152/attachment.html