From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Sep 2 19:06:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 7E77F3569AA; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:06:40 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8B9356938 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:06:36 +0200 (CEST) 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]:56639) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1T8Dd5-0000lY-p5 (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:06:35 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1T8Dd5-0005GQ-QN (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:06:35 +0100 Received: from [87.114.110.23] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 02 Sep 2012 18:06:35 +0100 Date: 02 Sep 2012 18:06:35 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John Reid Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4751) Provisional result of interpretations ballot 3, N1933 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120902155846.8D773356906@www.open-std.org> References: <20120902155846.8D773356906@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I withdrew the statement that led to this exchange in my corrected vote, as I was simply wrong. While it occurred, including it as a response from the editor will be confusing. Regards, Nick Maclaren. Nick Maclaren writes: <<< I agree with John Reid that it would be better to state explicitly that they do not have the BIND attribute, but that would not help. Sentences 2 and 3 in 15.3.3 paragraph 2 states that they are interoperable, but sentence 1 of 15.3.4 paragraph states that a derived type is interoperable if and only if the Fortran type has the BIND attribute. >>> No it does not state that. I am boggled by this assertion! p1 says "... is interoperable if it has ..." i.e. It Most Emphatically Does Not Say "ONLY IF". It is p2 that says that a derived type interoperates with a C struct *if and only if* it has the BIND attribute. That means that C_PTR and C_FUNPTR ***CANNOT*** have the BIND attribute, because ***they do not interoperate with any C struct***.