From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Jul 17 03:48:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id A9C52DA74E; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:48:48 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 839 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at pingo.cv.ihk.dk; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:48:47 UTC Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (sca-es-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.43.133]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB5223A4A for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:48:39 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6H1YYJg019639 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4400I01MYJFC00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from Robert.Corbett@Sun.COM) for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.146.84.104] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K44001CYN1LNU60@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:34:33 -0700 From: Robert Corbett Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3584) OPTIONAL arguments and C interop In-reply-to: <20080716151703.5BDC9D9F76@open-std.org> To: longb@cray.com, fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: sc22wg5@open-std.org Reply-to: Robert.Corbett@Sun.COM Message-id: <487EA1A9.2080706@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20080716151703.5BDC9D9F76@open-std.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060509 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Bill Long wrote: > At the last WG5 meeting we cut off debate on a couple of issues related > to the C Interop TR due to time running out before convergence occurred. > > One of the unresolved issues was the design for handling OPTIONAL > arguments in interfaces with BIND(C). The current design, which has > been static for a couple of years, is that missing actual arguments > corresponding to dummies with the OPTIONAL attribute are represented as > actual arguments with the value NULL. A side effect of this design is > that OPTIONAL and VALUE cannot be both specified for a particular dummy > argument. Ths initial specification of the VALUE attribute did not allow the combination of OPTIONAL and VALUE. The extension to allow them together was a late addition. Adding that extension was daft. Bob Corbett