From SUPERVISOR@edvzbb2.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at Wed Feb  2 15:53:22 1994
Received: from email.tuwien.ac.at by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA05758
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>); Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:53:22 +0100
Message-Id: <199402021453.AA05758@dkuug.dk>
Received: from edvzbb2.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at by email.tuwien.ac.at with SMTP (PP) 
          id <15572-0@email.tuwien.ac.at>; Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:51:06 +0100
Received: from EDVZ_BB2/MAILQUEUE2 by edvzbb2.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at (Mercury 1.1);
          Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:45:09 +100
To: bill@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (Bill Leonard)
From: "Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Schmitt" <SUPERVISOR@edvzbb2.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:44:57 CET+60
Subject: Re: Comp.lang.fortran comments on evoluti
Reply-To: schmitt@edvz.tuwien.ac.at
Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
X-Pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

> 
> >  > The fact is, there is no technical reason for this restriction 
to 
> >  > remain. It is a holdover from ancient architectures.  
Furthermore, 
> >  > F90 now allows structures containing both CHARACTER and 
> >  > non-CHARACTER data, and COMMON is
> >  > nothing more than a big structure.  So what's the problem?
> 
> >  The difference is storrage association.
> 
> No, it's not.  We still have SEQUENCE structures that can be 
storage
> associated as long as the declarations are identical.  No reason 
why COMMON
> blocks can't do the same.
> 
But as you know, COMMON-blocks does not have the same declarations.

Regards, Gerhard