(j3.2006) more on J32031 equivalence of circular types

[Bill Long]

Michael Ingrassia wrote:
> I think I left out a step.  To see that it's ambiguous, you have to
> concede that
>
> "components that agree in order, name, and attributes"
>
> might as well say
>
> "components that agree in order, name, type, type parameters, and attributes"
>
> since type and type parameters are included in the notion of attributes
> (first two sentences of Clause 5).
>
> Otherwise the paragraph wouldn't explicitly say that components 
> need to be of the same type.
>   

Or, rather would.

OK, I see the issue.  The types are the same if the types of the 
components are the same which is the case if the types are the same ...

But certainly two sequence types that are lexically identical are 
intended to be the same type.  Is there any implementation that gets 
this wrong, or is this a purely theoretical discussion?

Cheers,
Bill

>
> 	--Michael I.
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>   

-- 
Bill Long                                   longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &              voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development         fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120