From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Mar 10 00:01:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 9F849C178E7; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:01:25 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1284 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:01:24 CET Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E594CC178E4 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:01:24 +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]:54326) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1PxS2v-0001Jj-Sn (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:39:57 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1PxS2v-0000tA-Tb (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:39:57 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 09 Mar 2011 22:39:57 +0000 Date: 09 Mar 2011 22:39:57 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4410) (j3.2006) WG informal ballot Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110309215128.C3BFEC178E4@www2.open-std.org> References: <20110304095000.610DEC3BA01@www2.open-std.org> <20110309215128.C3BFEC178E4@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Mar 9 2011, Van Snyder wrote: > >8. [5.2.1p3 9:19-21] Is there a good reason to prohibit a C source file >from having any identifiers other than the ones gotten from >ISO_Fortran_binding.h to begin with CFI_? A "google" search for "CFI" >returned 6,320,000 results, so it is conceivable that a pre-existing C >file might have identifiers beginning with CFI, and then someday need to >be interoperable. For example, at http://www.gocfi.com we see "CFI >provides Enterprise Asset Management, Computerized Maintenance >Management System, Archibus, CMMS Software,...." If possible, delete >this paragraph. The reason is that not doing that means that any future extension will break at least some valid C code. Worse, at least some valid C code will change meaning, but not get a diagnostic. It's a pain, I agree, but such restrictions are normal practice in C interfaces, for that very reason. People have learnt from the experience of not doing it! Regards, Nick.