From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Sep 15 09:33:33 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 DEDB03569A7; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:33:33 +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 6BF3E356854 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:33:21 +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]:36085) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1TCmsS-0001cf-oB (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:33:20 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1TCmsS-00081l-HU (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:33:20 +0100 Received: from [87.112.138.201] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 15 Sep 2012 08:33:20 +0100 Date: 15 Sep 2012 08:33:20 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4776) [WG5 letter ballot 4 on Fortran 2008 interpretations] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120914232724.BB7E5356938@www.open-std.org> References: <20120914232724.BB7E5356938@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 This is merely a remark on a response, not a response. On Sep 15 2012, Van Snyder wrote: > >-C- --- F08/0057 Interoperability with empty types > > Does this need a compatibility caveat in 1.6? I doubt it. While empty structures are allowed in C++, including in its C mode, and they are allowed as an extension in gcc and Intel C, it IS explicitly and clearly illegal in C and has not been added even to C11. Despite the statement in the question, it is neither a syntax error nor a constraint in C - it is merely forbidden, and so can be extended without needing a warning - but compatibility caveats for interoperability with extended C languages does seem to be going a bit far. Regards, Nick Maclaren.