(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4360) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot reInterop. TR

[Aleksandar Donev]

On 11/30/2010 10:11 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> E) Re UTI 1: I do not like "unlimited polymorphic", and in fact
>> strongly prefer that it me made very clear assumed type has nothing to
>> do with unlimited polymorphic. But the standardese may need some more
>> work than I have time for.
>
> But it *is* unlimited polymorphic.
Well, sure, since you have defined it. Perhaps that definition was fine 
when we only had CLASS(*). I am proposing that it ought to be changed 
now to *only* include CLASS(*), and TYPE(*) be separate. Polymorphic 
should mean an object that can have different dynamic types. 
Assumed-type objects should be classified as having no type. It is 
different from "has a type that I do not know at compile time". I know 
it requires more work to invent this new kind of untyped objected, but I 
think it is important,
IMHO,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Office: 909 Warren Weaver Hall, New York University
E-mail: donev at courant.nyu.edu
Phone: (212) 992-7315; Fax: (212) 995-4121
Mailing address: 251 Mercer St, New York, NY 10012
Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev