Is the included code standard conforming?

[Brooks Moses]

FX Coudert wrote:
> Well, there are a lot of a intrinsic functions for which one specific  
> name (usually for the default real kind) is identical to the generic  
> name. (And I should know, because I've just changed the whole list in  
> intrinsic.c to be correct wrt the Standard a few minutes ago ;-)
[...]
> So, I guess we could (as a compiler extension) decide that LOG is  
> also a specific name for LOG, with a default real as argument.

We could, but Dominique's code would still be broken, because in the 
test_d subroutine he's passing it a double-precision argument.

I don't see any reason to introduce that particular extension.

- Brooks