From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Mar 23 09:30:28 2011
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 3A2DEC178DC; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:30:28 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.54])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A471C178DA
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:30:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Trace: 593251997/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/85.211.114.239/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 85.211.114.239
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SMTP-AUTH: 
X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM
X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.17) Gecko/20110123 SeaMonkey/2.0.12
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApEBAKNMiU1V03Lv/2dsb2JhbAAMrnm7CoVpBIxvg0Y
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,230,1299456000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="593251997"
Received: from 85-211-114-239.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([85.211.114.239])
  by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2011 08:30:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4D89AFA0.40808@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:30:24 +0000
From: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.17) Gecko/20110123 SeaMonkey/2.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Muxworthy <d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk>
Cc: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4416)  WG informal ballot
References: <20110303174947.DD0CAC3BA01@www2.open-std.org> <20110322185659.62647C178DC@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110322185659.62647C178DC@www2.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

David Muxworthy wrote:

....

> 5. A contrary view
> 5.1 The original project specification, N1667, was to extend the
> functionality of passing Fortran arguments to C.

I don't think this is correct. It says
"C interoperability in the Fortran Standard provides a mechanism to 
share data between  Fortran and C.  However, it is still necessary for 
users to implement a translation layer for procedures that have data 
pointer, allocatable, assumed-shape array, or optional dummy arguments. 
This work item will provide additional mechanisms that allow C functions 
to directly handle such Fortran dummy arguments."

and f08 says (15.1)
"Fortran provides a means of referencing procedures that are defined by 
means of the C programming language or procedures that can be described 
by C prototypes as dened in 6.7.5.3 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999, even if they
are not actually defined by means of C. Conversely, there is a means of 
specifying that a procedure defined by a Fortran subprogram can be 
referenced from a function dened by means of C."

I see the importance of both Fortran calling C and vice-versa. For 
example, my group at RAL is looking to make C interfaces available to 
our Fortran HSL procedures.

Cheers,

John.