(j3.2006) Binding label and bind(c) procedure name scopes
Whitlock, Stan
stan.whitlock
Thu May 28 00:38:09 EDT 2015
Meeting 186 was joint with WG5 in Tokyo, Japan, 16-21, 2008. The minutes 09-100 record that 08-295 was passed:
3. Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:00 AM
-----------------------------------------------------
/DATA
Discuss 08-295 "External procedures and binding labels"
Revision of papers 08-187 and 08-196 from last meeting that were
not acted upon. This is a significant change from F03.
** /WG5 **
There were no comments. 08-295 is OK with WG5.
** /J3 **
** motion: 08-295 (Cohen/Ingrassia) - uc
/Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Bill Long
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:14 PM
To: Van Snyder; fortran standards email list for J3
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) Binding label and bind(c) procedure name scopes
The original question from Daniel was whether his Case 2 was conforming. I think that the text in F2008, which was different from the text in F2003, says that it is conforming.
I mainly remember that this changed because I wrote a bug for our compiler to have the behavior changed for F2008. However, some rummaging with grep lead to the paper:
The change from F2003 to F2008 that made the name of a procedure with a binding label a local identifier was made in paper 08-295, author = Malcolm Cohen (meeting 186). Included in the discussion was that fact that this was, indeed, a change from F2003, with rational arguments in favor of the change, and a history of previous papers on the topic.
Cheers,
Bill
On May 27, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Van Snyder <Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, it was Aleks who asked for this. I searched
> through my entire archive looking for "binding" and "aleks" in the
> same paper, and didn't find one that did this.
>
> I remember discussions of it, but it's not in the 2008 work plan
> (06-010r3).
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:10 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> 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.
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> ___
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 08-295.txt
Url: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20150528/cfeef1cf/attachment-0001.txt
More information about the J3
mailing list