From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Sep 20 20:49:22 2004
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk
Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 9E66637608; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:49:22 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66])
	by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D622137605
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:49:15 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov (smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.184])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i8KIl6jH014879
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from vsnyder@mls.jpl.nasa.gov)
Received: from eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.64])
	by smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8KIhsYN009399
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mls.jpl.nasa.gov by eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:54 -0700
Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	by mls.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8KIhrT3015267;
	Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8KIhrHC003184;
	Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:53 -0700
Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (vsnyder@localhost)
	by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i8KIhrYM003180;
	Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:53 -0700
Message-Id: <200409201843.i8KIhrYM003180@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
From: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: j3@j3-fortran.org, sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Last minute sanity check on Modules TR
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:43:52 -0700
X-Spam-Score: 0.339 () NO_REAL_NAME
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk


The Modules TR has been balloted and accepted for publication.  I'm
preparing to send it to Sally Seitz at ANSI.  She has requested a few
changes in the Foreword.  I assume all of that is acceptable to J3
and WG5.

I have just realized, however, that we have introduced a situation
wherein the lexical analysis of a statement depends upon its context,
at least in fixed form.

When one prepares an interface for a module subroutine P that has no
arguments, separating its interface and body, one writes

  module M
    interface
      module subroutine P
      end subroutine P
    end interface
  end module M

In fixed form, the subroutine statement could be written

      module subroutineP

One writes the same thing in the module subprogram part.

This is identical in form to a MODULE statement.  Does this concern
anybody enough to want to reconsider it?

You may recall that in early drafts, I advocated to use the word SEPARATE
in the prefix, to indicate that the interface and body are separate.  Some
thought this might be confused with EXTERNAL, which is actually spelt
quite differently from SEPARATE.

-- 
Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.