Date:    13-May-2002                                  J2/02-198R1
To:      J3
From:    Larry Meadows
Subject: Unresolved Issue #347

Refs: J3/01-363r2

Discussion:

Straw vote indicates that J3 would like a note.
I find myself unable to craft such a note. I think
that everything is fine anyway. I propose no edits.
Hopefully the following text is sufficient for the
committee.

Unresolved Issue #347, 02-007R1 p. 388, raises an issue
about bullet #4 rewording (in 15.2.6). Bullet #4 states

(4) all the dummy arguments are nonoptional dummy data objects
{ or dummy procedures that have the BIND attribute; }
Note: bracketed phrase is a subject of issue 347.

And, bullet #6 states

(6) any dummy argument without the VALUE attribute corresponds
to a formal parameter that is of a pointer type, and the dummy
argument is interoperable with an entity of the referenced type
(C standard, 6.2.5) of the formal parameter; ...

Subgroup believes there is no issue. The addition to bullet
4 places a requirement on dummy procedure arguments; they must
have the BIND attribute so that C can call them.

The remainder of issue #347 asks what it means for a dummy
procedure to be interoperable with C, specifically what does
it mean for it to be interoperable with an entity of the
referenced type.

In C, a function cannot be passed as an argument; rather, a
function name used as a dummy argument is converted to a pointer
to a function with the corresponding prototype. A C function
that returns void is equivalent to a fortran subroutine, and
in C, is converted to a pointer to a function returning void
when used as a dummy argument. The language in bullet #6 is
referring to C pointers.

Edits:

[388:11+] Delete J3 note