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

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Mon Nov 23 19:38:00 EST 2009

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:25 -0800, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> Van Snyder wrote:
> > 16.3.1p3 says that a generic name may be the same as a procedure name
> > "as explained in"
> Bill Long replied:
> > I think the relevant text is in, [283:9-11], which covers the case of 
> > a generic name and a procedure name being the same. The next paragraph, 
> > [283:12-13] covers the case of a generic name being the same as a derived-type 
> > name.
> >
> > The cross reference at [442:19] appears to need fixing.
> I agree.  This used to be described in until we broke it up into 
> several pieces.
> It would be useful if this were included in some country comment on the FCD 
> ballot.

I'm preparing a J3 paper of "Last minute stuff" for 191.

I've put it in that paper.

I've also remarked that we broke C845 at 190.  It should have been as in
09-290, not as in 09-290r2 (with "within" spelled correctly).

Is WG5 allowed to take up such matters if they're not in a NB comment?

> Cheers,

More information about the J3 mailing list