(j3.2006) Interop observation

[Van Snyder]

A colleague has observed that it's not terribly difficult to construct a
duplicate definition using interop features.

The example was

    SUBROUTINE AnyNamesubf(i)BIND(C,NAME="csubf_")
    USE, INTRINSIC :: iso_c_binding, ONLY: c_int

      INTEGER(c_int) :: i
      CALL Csubf(i)
    END SUBROUTINE AnyNamesubf

where Csubf was a non-interoperable Fortran external subroutine.

I don't think this is a normative issue for the standard, but should we
put a note somewhere that might help people not create these?  Maybe
something like advising not to give binding names to Fortran procedures
that are all lower case (or all upper case) and are sufficiently similar
to the external names of non-interoperable Fortran external procedures
that the linker might be sent the same name for both of them.