(j3.2006) components that are data objects?
Tue May 22 20:34:23 EDT 2007
Michael Ingrassia said:
> NOTE 15.12  says
> The syntax rules and their constraints require that a derived type
> that is interoperable have components that are all data objects
> that are interoperable.
> Is there something askew with our language here?
Yes. It's only a note though, it's not normative.
> I thought that
> data objects were constants, variables, or subobjects of constants.
> So how can a component be a data object ?
When it's a structure component.
> You might even have
> a derived type for which no variables are ever declared!
> What's the proper usage?
"objects" -> "entities"
> Is "derived type ... have components" is wrong?
> Types don't have components, structures do.
Derived types do so have components! See the first sentence
of 220.127.116.11 "Derived type".
> Is "components that are ... data objects" wrong ?
> Components aren't data objects.
Yes, it's a one-word typo. I'll fix it in 07-007r2.
........................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp), Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3