From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Sep 18 11:23:11 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 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 ; 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 ); 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 ); 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" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4782) [WG5 letter ballot 4 on Fortran 2008 interpretations] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120918081154.8817935692C@www.open-std.org> References: <20120914232724.BB7E5356938@www.open-std.org> <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.