[J3] Is this standard-conforming?

[Dan Nagle]

Hi,

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 10:23 , Bill Long via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> Similar to your case, the import of ugg  from the host occurs on the statement after the one where ugg is used.  In the case of a type definition like this there is no practical alternative, so compilers have been taught to ‘look ahead’ for a type definition.   I suspect we intended to allow the case you described, but the vendors did not anticipate needing to do a look-ahead for anything other that the function type.   If Malcolm disagrees about the intent, I’m ok with that.   I think it boils down to whether the FUNCTION statement itself is part of the scoping unit of the function. 
> 

And indeed, this is the oldest interpretation request in the file.
The issue has been argued, and the argument accepted, both ways.

--

Cheers!
Dan Nagle