From JLS@liverpool.ac.uk Sun Jan 5 23:51:17 1992 Received: from danpost2.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA12785; Sun, 5 Jan 92 23:51:17 +0100 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by danpost2.uni-c.dk (5.65/1.34) id AA07280; Sun, 5 Jan 92 22:51:00 GMT Message-Id: <9201052251.AA07280@danpost2.uni-c.dk> Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 0739; Sun, 05 Jan 92 23:50:51 DNT Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1568; Sun, 05 Jan 92 23:50:50 DNT Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3697; Thu, 02 Jan 92 15:20:56 GMT Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3022; Thu, 02 Jan 92 15:20:55 GMT Via: UK.AC.LIV.IBM; 2 JAN 92 15:20:40 GMT Received: from JLS@UK.AC.LIVERPOOL by MAILER(4.2.a); 2 Jan 1992 15:19:49 GM Date: Thu, 02 Jan 92 15:05:53 GMT From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Re: interpretation question To: "Jerrold L. Wagener" , SC22/WG5 members In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 23 Dec 91 12:08:56 CST X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 On Mon, 23 Dec 91 12:08:56 CST Jerrold L. Wagener (jwagener@com.amoco.trc) said: >To X3J3 > >At meeting 120 last month we passed an interpretation in paper 120-92 that >asked the question >"May a derived-type type-name contained in an internal procedure be the same as >one contained in the host scoping unit?". >Our answer was >"NO. This is prohibited by the last constraint following R424...". > >Is this the interpretation we want? >List item (1) in section 12.1.2.2.1 seems to explicitly allow this situation. > Rightly or wrongly,( wrongly in my opinion ) we chose to have host association work differently from use association. The rules we spent considerable time trying to get right were that local specification of a host association accessible entity was allowed but it made the host entity inaccessible. Local specification of an entity accessible via use association is defined to be illegal. The constraint on page 33 does not apply to host association since the local specification in an internal procedure will make the host type-name inaccessible. The above interpretation is incorrect. 12.1.2.2.1 does explicitly permit the local definition of a type with the same name as one in its host. Lawrie