From maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov Tue Jun 27 04:10:05 1995 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA05998 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 27 Jun 1995 20:09:08 +0200 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00879; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:10:07 +0800 From: maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) Message-Id: <9506271810.AA00879@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.829) Re: defect item 127 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:10:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199506271333.AA16100@dkuug.dk> from "Lawrie Schonfelder" at Jun 27, 95 02:28:21 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 906 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 It seems a little late to be having this discussion of a design decision in f90. Regardless of what one might argue *should* have been done, this is an interpretation request. There does not appear to be any ambiguity about what the standard says on this. Nor does there appear to be any catastrophic flaw in what the standard says. One could argue that the name scope classes aren't designed in the best way - I might even agree with such an argument; but this does not constitute a catastrophe. Such namespace cleanup seems like an appropriate subject for f2k (or even f95 if someone thinks it of enough priority). But I don't know why we are debating what f90 should have said on the subject. This is 1995. F90 compilers and programs have been out for about 4 years. Changing this in f90 would retroactively make existing compilers non-conforming. -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov