(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3768) Response on the TR29113 draft N1761

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Mon Dec 8 13:59:47 EST 2008


On Monday 08 December 2008 10:55, Reinhold Bader wrote:
> ? ?Could one not apply the same argument to C_LOC() itself? Why was
> ? ?a polymorphic argument to C_LOC() disallowed?
Because, the way "handles" were envisioned is that you take a 
non-interoperable object, do C_LOC to get a handle, and then do 
C_F_POINTER later to get back to the object. You can allow a 
polymorphic or an object with type-parameters, but then the handle is 
incomplete (only has an address but no type info), and so it is not 
possible to reconstruct the object from the handle later. So the 
feature would be useless and only a source of bugs. If you can think of 
a good use, do speak up :-)
Best,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816  Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Web: http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/donev




More information about the J3 mailing list