From J.Reid@directory.rl.ac.uk Tue Dec 1 11:32:31 1992 Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA26679 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:31:26 +0100 X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/; Relayed; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:30:51 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 09:56:14 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:19:33 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:32:32 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:32:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 10:32:31 +0100 X400-Originator: J.Reid@directory.rutherford.ac.uk X400-Recipients: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/;<9212010932.AA03544@numerical.cc] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: S20/71 From: " (John Reid)" Sender: J.Reid@directory.rl.ac.uk Message-Id: <9212010932.AA03544@numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: S20/71 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Here is my oinion on this draft response. What do others think? Regards, John. I am strongly opposed to S20/71. Edit 4 (deleting the last two sentences of 5.5.2.5) represents a change to the language definition. These sentences were not put in by accident. A fundamental property of modules is that an object in a module is defined once only. The intention of the sentences is to say that if you are accessing variables in a common block, you must not also redeclare that common block. For example, the current non-standard practice of placing the common block in a file and including it can be replaced by placing the common block in a module and using it. If we allow the common block to be redeclared in a scoping unit that accesses the module, we get an inconsistency with the interpretation of an include. The standard treats host association differently. Here any object of the host, including any in a common block, may be inherited provided no entity of that name is declared in the child. Edits 1 to 3 add clarity but do not resolve an ambiguity. I therefore propose either (i) delete the end of the answer from 'One of these cases' and delete all the edits; or (ii) delete the sentence from 'One of these cases. ..' and the clause 'and eliminate the ineffective restriction in 5.5.2.5'; delete edit 4; and change 'USE' to 'use' in edits 2 and 3.