From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Sep 18 10:11:54 2012
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 479F83568F1; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:11:54 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386B73568AE
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:11:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8I8BnfW025552
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:11:51 GMT
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <653A556455B541389F47DEDCBAE1A5D5@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20120914232724.BB7E5356938@www.open-std.org><Prayer.1.3.5.1209150833200.28139@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20120915222530.59C0835698D@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120915222530.59C0835698D@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4779) [WG5 letter ballot 4 on Fortran 2008 interpretations]
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:11:47 +0900
Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

>Just because one declares a type with the BIND(C) attribute, and creates 
>objects of that type, doesn't mean they are actually ever used for 
>interoperation.  Bizarre, yes, but permitted by the standard -- until this 
>interp.  Compatibility caveats in 1.6 are for compatibility with earlier 
>Fortran standards, not for interoperability.  "We allowed this in Fortran 2003, 
>but not any more."

I remain of the view that the only reasonable interpretation of a requirement to 
interoperate with a syntax error is a requirement to produce a syntax error 
message.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.