From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Sep 21 10:22:20 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521) id 0746937607; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:22:20 +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 1EE4C37605 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:22:17 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from mail35.messagelabs.com (mail35.messagelabs.com [62.231.131.195]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with SMTP id i8L8K3jH028782 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:20:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from malcolm@nag.co.uk) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: malcolm@nag.co.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-19.tower-35.messagelabs.com!1095754453!14468146 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=nag.co.uk,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.72] Received: (qmail 21266 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2004 08:14:13 -0000 Received: from smtp-3.star.net.uk (212.125.75.72) by server-19.tower-35.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2004 08:14:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 5126 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2004 08:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.231.145.242) by smtp-3.star.net.uk with SMTP; 21 Sep 2004 08:04:51 -0000 Received: from brackley.nag.co.uk (brackley.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.21]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13320 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:14:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (from malcolm@localhost) by brackley.nag.co.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) id i8L8FPu51608 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:15:25 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from malcolm) From: Malcolm Cohen Message-Id: <200409210815.i8L8FPu51608@brackley.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: Last minute sanity check on Modules TR To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:15:25 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: >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. And this should worry us why? > interface > module subroutine P [...] > >In fixed form, the subroutine statement could be written > > module subroutineP And this differs from INTERFACE MODULE PROCEDURE MP how? (it doesn't). There is no problem here, not even a tiny trivial one. BTW, could people possibly NOT send messages both to J3 and WG5? I don't really need three copies of such things. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________