(j3.2006) derived types with type parameters are different

[Michael Ingrassia]

>If we take the attitude that, 5 years after the fact, it's OK to remove 
>some intentionally included feature ... then what level of
>confidence does any vendor have

Absolutely, I agree with you here.

The trouble here in this specific case
is that even if we agree that
"parameterized derived types with SEQUENCE attributes" was a feature included
intentionally, in some sense, it's not clear that 'qua feature' it
has any particular meaning.

If we can clarify exactly what the meaning was/is, we will be better off.
If there is no particular meaning, it hardly matters that we protect
the standards process if we can't also protect the standard.

Can't  the basic integrity of the standards process also be
hurt by agreeing only on syntax?  

If users will have codes with parameterized derived types with
SEQUENCE attributes, then I hear you arguing that the standard should
guarantee that all vendors shall accept those codes.

Suppose a vendor accepts the code but treats SEQUENCE as a noop in the
presence of type parameters.
Has the standard been subverted?  What does the user expect by adding
SEQUENCE?  What does the standard guarantee to the user who adds SEQUENCE ?

	--Michael I.