(j3.2006) F03/0103, was Re: Interp letter ballot #25

[Van Snyder]

Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> <<<
> ---  -N-  F03/0103   Restrictions on dummy arguments not present for
>                      polymorphic type or parameterized derived type
>            I agree that the answer correctly handles the case of
>            length type parameters (Q2), but it appears not to have
>            addressed the question of polymorphism (Q1).
>>>>
>
> This is answered already
>   "These were all intended to be standard-conforming."
>
> There is no edit for that particular part because no edit is needed - 
> the standard already allowed it, or rather, the standard already did 
> not disallow it.  We cannot copy the entire standard into the answer 
> and say "look here, no prohibition".  Note that the person asking the 
> question did not mention any part of the standard that he thought 
> might be excluding that case.
>
> Would splitting the first paragraph of the answer into
> "   A1. Yes.  There is no prohibition against this in the standard.
>
>    A2. This was intended to be standard-conforming."
> be helpful?

I suppose it would be.  But I should have noticed it.

Stan:  Count my vote on F03/0103 as Yes instead of No.

>
> Cheers,