From j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk  Wed Mar 29 15:31:56 2000
Received: from mailhub2.liv.ac.uk (mailhub2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.95])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA21673
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk)
Received: from pcmail1.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.252.13])
	by mailhub2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12aIZJ-0000oe-00; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:31:33 +0100
Received: from [138.253.102.118] (helo=pc102118.liv.ac.uk)
	by pcmail1.liv.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12aIZI-0006nW-00; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:31:32 +0100
From: Lawrie Schonfelder <j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk
To: "Kurt W. Hirchert" <hirchert@ccs.uky.edu>
Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1741) Interpretation 001
In-Reply-To: <200003291300.PAA21560@dkuug.dk>
Message-ID: <SIMEON.10003291432.E@pc102118.liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:31:32 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43)
X-Authentication: IMSP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII


On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:00:11 -0500 "Kurt W. Hirchert" <hirchert@ccs.uky.edu> 
wrote:

<snip>
I agree with most everything Kurt said. However, I have always thought that 
the obviously sensible, as distinct from standard committee legalistic, 
interpretation of things like implied do indecies is that
a. they have the scope of the implied do and
b. they are implicitly declared only in that scope not in the surrounding 
host scope.

I would go further and suggest that should an object of the same name be 
declared implicitly or explicitly in the host scope it is a different entity, 
i.e. that the rules of host association apply, as they would in any other 
language with nested scopes. This is I fear a vane hope therefore Kurt's 
final point is very well made. We probably got the default for public/private 
the wrong way round in all but the most trivial of cases.
> 
> However the interpretation comes out, I think the real lesson to take from
> this is that unless you are using modules as an _extremely_ bland
> replacement for common, you are probably better off overriding the default
> accessibility of "public" and then explicitly controlling what you want to
> be accessible from your module.
> --
> Kurt W. Hirchert                          hirchert@ccs.uky.edu
> Center for Computational Sciences                +606-257-8748

--
Lawrie Schonfelder
Director, Computing Services Dept.
The University of Liverpool, UK, L69 7ZF
Phone: 44(151)794 3716, Fax: 44(151)794 3759




