[Patch, Fortran] Follow-up to used-before-typed patch

[Daniel Kraft]

Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Daniel Kraft wrote:
>> Regarding the in_prefix and parser-state, I've tried to do this but 
>> got two failures for function_kind_2.f90 and function_type_1.f90 
>> (IIRC) as the logic handling those is bailing out because of the new 
>> parser-state.  I'm not sure if this is really a good idea; maybe I 
>> should just rename in_prefix to gfc_matching_prefix, for instance, to 
>> get consistent with e.g. gfc_matching_function?
> I was also rethinking it and maybe using something like 
> gfc_matching_prefix is indeed better. I also think one could move it 
> from gfortran.h to match.h. (I'm sure there are other extern variables 
> in gfortran.h which could be moved as well.)

So I then propose to rename it as gfc_matching_prefix and move it to 
match.h, in addition to the gfc_traverse_expr patch sent.  What do you 
think about this?

BTW, regression test finished indeed without failures, but not much a 
surprise...

Daniel