From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Dec 9 22:00:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 7F6E6CA343D; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:00:35 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B83CA3439 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:00:34 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:37739) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1LA9h4-0004u2-NX (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:00:34 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1LA9h4-0005gt-99 (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:00:34 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 09 Dec 2008 21:00:34 +0000 Date: 09 Dec 2008 21:00:34 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3804) (j3.2006) N1761, TYPE(*), BIND(C) and arrays Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081209205032.53A2FCA3439@www2.open-std.org> References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081209172327.D05AFC178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081209184656.288E8CA3439@www2.open-std.org> <20081209185450.B4B95CA3439@www2.open-std.org> <20081209203233.1E8AFCA3439@www2.open-std.org> <20081209205032.53A2FCA3439@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 9 2008, Van Snyder wrote: > >So long as the processor can see the interface at the point of the call, >which it can because you put in an appropriate USE statement, it can >build the actual argument descriptors correctly, that is, so they are >what the called procedure expects in its dummy arguments. > >Therefore, none of the examples in the program are problematical. Aargh! You are right, of course. The critical wording is that explicit interface specifications are required. I shouldn't have tried to write a reply the night before leaving on a month's holiday :-( I withdraw that comment, and apologise for wasting people's time. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679