(j3.2006) Question about generic names, procedure names, and constructors

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Fri Nov 20 21:17:55 EST 2009

16.3.1p3 says that a generic name may be the same as a procedure name
"as explained in"

I couldn't find anything in that is germane to this statement.

What does it mean?  Where is it described in

Do and work for the case of a generic function name
that is the same as a derived type name?

Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.

More information about the J3 mailing list