(j3.2006) defining a type with no components

Dan Nagle danlnagle
Thu Apr 17 09:44:49 EDT 2014


On Apr 16, 2014, at 17:34 , Malcolm Cohen <malcolm at NAG-J.CO.JP> wrote:

> Try [452:34].  This answers all the definition questions.

Which reads ?A derived-type scalar object is defined if and only if
all its nonpointer components are defined.?

So since foo has no nonpointer components, they?re all defined.

It seems just as logical to say they?re all not defined,
or all green, or all not green.

Is there a more clear statement I missed?

Sorry for being obtuse.


Dan Nagle

More information about the J3 mailing list