(j3.2006) Binding label and bind(c) procedure name scopes

[Malcolm Cohen]

When I say evidence, I don't mean noting some wording change, I mean actual 
evidence.

If you claim an interp did it, that means Which Interp.  My recollection is that 
the interp came out the way I wrote earlier, so I very very much doubt it.

If you claim a technical change did it, I've already given evidence that that is 
not the case.  Of course maybe we did it and forgot to add the change to the 
Introduction, in which case finding the meeting paper which made the alleged 
technical change is the necessary evidence (and the Introduction should be 
fixed...see below).

If there was some editorial change that was not intended to change the feature, 
then whatever the words say we did not intend to make any change!

I was rather hoping the person who claimed we decided to do this would search 
and find the meeting paper rather than putting the onus on me to "prove a 
negative".

If we did decide to change this, I am 99.99% certain it was not via an interp 
and therefore should have been mentioned in the Introduction, and therefore an 
interp *to add it to the Introduction* would be in order!

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: Bill Long
Date: ?? 27?5?28? 0:24
To: fortran standards email list for J3
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) Binding label and bind(c) procedure name scopes

In 04-007 (F2003) 16.1 on Scope of global identifiers lists the name of an 
?external procedure? as a global identifier, unqualified.

In 10-007r1 (F2008) 16.1 on Global identifiers lists the name of an "external 
procedure with no binding label? as a global identifier and 16.2 on Local 
identifiers lists then names of "external procedures that have binding labels? 
as class 1 local identifiers.  04-007 does not mention binding labels in 16.2 . 
This change might have occurred by an interp to F2003, which would explain the 
lack of mention in the F2008 introduction.

Cheers,
Bill



On May 26, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Malcolm Cohen <malcolm at nag-j.co.jp> wrote:

> Bill Long writes:
>> I thought we already changed the standard to allow this.
>
> Did we?  Do you have any evidence for this?  (I don't offhand see anything 
> about
> it in the F2008 Introduction... which does not conclusively mean we did not do
> it, but...)
>
> Cheers,
> -- 
> ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.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


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

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
________________________________________________________________________

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