From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Sep 18 11:23:11 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 2A3B1356973; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:23:11 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7383F3568F1
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:23:08 +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]:53817)
	by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1TDu1L-00032Z-sJ (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:23:07 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1TDu1L-00048h-QO (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:23:07 +0100
Received: from [131.111.10.113] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 18 Sep 2012 10:23:07 +0100
Date: 18 Sep 2012 10:23:07 +0100
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4782) [WG5 letter ballot 4 on Fortran 2008
 interpretations]
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1209181023070.13678@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20120918081154.8817935692C@www.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>
 <20120918081154.8817935692C@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

On Sep 18 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

>> 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.

I agree.  Unfortunately, the wrinkle is that, in terms of the C standard,
this is a syntactic error that is not a syntax error (strictly, a breach
of a syntax rule or constraint).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.