(j3.2006) Generic interface question

[Bill Long]

On 3/10/11 1:34 PM, Van Snyder wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I assume "everything" would encompass only "things",  i.e. entities. So 
the definition seems content-free.   I would assume that descriptions or 
declarations of "things" would still not be "things".

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

Would "things" be better?  Somehow, "entities" sounds more sophisticated.

I think what you really want is a paragraph that starts "Entities of a 
program are {comma separated list}.  I would expect the list to include 
procedures, variables, constants, named constants, types, modules, 
submodules, ???

Cheers,
Bill


> 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"?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

-- 
Bill Long                                           longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &                 voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development            fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101