(j3.2006) C1247 and C1248

[Malcolm Cohen]

Van Snyder wrote:
> It seems that C1248 duplicates C1247, but less precisely.

Why is it "less precise"?  Less verbose I will grant you.

In fact I think C1248 is correct and C1247 is wrong, but maybe that's just me. 
All C1247 says is that "an" accessible separate interface body must exist, it 
doesn't say that it has to be for the same module procedure!

> Does it do something new?

C1248 was meant to replace C1247.

> It wasn't in the TR.  It appeared between 09-007 and 09-007r1, but I can't 
> find the paper that introduced it.

09-156, where it says that I reworded (the previous) C1247 and C1248, whilst 
entering 09-130r1.

Cheers,
-- 
......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.