(j3.2006) Alternative binding label without C interoperability?

[Malcolm Cohen]

>By having them be module procedures, we can use the same name for these in 
>every component and again avoid name space collisions.

Well, except that if you ask for BIND(whatever,NAME=) you are going to have 
to manage those name space collisions manually anyway, exactly the same as 
for external procedures.

That does not seem like a significant improvement over having the thing with 
a global identifier actually being an external procedure, which assuming 
access to private entities is wanted would be a wrapper for a module 
procedure reference.

Van writes:
>Some but not all of the restrictions can be finessed using C_PTR.

I think all of the restrictions can be finessed using C_PTR, one just has to 
be a little inventive in how one writes the wrapper.

>It would be helpful to be able to give a global name to a module procedure, 
>and not have the restrictions of 18.3.7.

Having a global identifier is one of the defining characteristics of an 
external procedure.  In my opinion it is better not to go down that route 
for module procedures.  I think that there are potentially better solutions.

Cheers,
-- 
...........................Malcolm.