(j3.2006) Generic interface question

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 16:49 -0800, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> I note that under the conjecture that interface bodies are global
> entities, binding labels are the least of our worries - one would not
> be able to have an interface body for any external procedure since it
> and the external procedure would be two entities with the same global
> identifier.  Fortunately, the supposition that a piece of syntax in
> the source code is an entity of the program is unfounded.  It
> ***describes*** an entity (indeed, declares it), and that entity is
> the procedure so described.

This illustrates precisely why I asked in 1986 for S8.99 (or so), and
again at meeting 142, to include a definition of "entity."

The answer was "we don't need a definition because everything is an
entity."

If it had been defined formally, probably as Malcolm wants it to be
interpreted, instead of the response to my request being "everything is
an entity," we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Either we ought to stop using the term, or define it.

Acting on that advice, I concluded that where 16.2p1 says "entities with
binding labels" are global global entities of the program, I thought it
included interface bodies with binding labels.  After all, "everything"
includes interface bodies, right?

Could we define "entity," not least so it doesn't include "everything,"
or at least be more precise in 16.2p1, saying perhaps "procedures with
binding labels, common blocks with binding labels, variables with
binding labels"?