(j3.2006) Does anybody remember why ...?

[Malcolm Cohen]

>Does anybody remember why a BLOCK construct is not mentioned in 16.5.1.4
>[10-007r1:443:27] as having access to its host instance by host
>association?

Yes.(*)

>Shouldn't the rules in 16.5.1.4p2 [10-007r1:443:35ff] apply to BLOCK
>constructs?  I don't see where they're applied.

I think they are not necessary.  BLOCK constructs are handled in 16.4 not 16.5.

>If a BLOCK construct could access its host instance by host association,
>items (5) and (6) in 7.1.11p2 [10-007r1:150:15-18] wouldn't be needed,
>because of item (4).

Yes but it doesn't so they're not unnecessary.

(*) Basically, it does not have access to entities in its "host instance" 
(whatever that is - it has none) by host association.  The entities you are 
thinking of have "inclusive scope" - unlike the situation with e.g. internal 
procedures where we say that X in the host and X in the local are two separate 
entities that are associated by host association, with BLOCK we say that X is 
the same entity throughout the host and the BLOCK (we say this by giving X 
"inclusive scope").

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