(j3.2006) defining a type with no components

[Dan Nagle]

Hi,

On Apr 17, 2014, at 08:27 , Kurt W Hirchert <hirchert at UIUC.EDU> wrote:

>  [452:34] is clear!

If [452:34] is clear by itself, then so are [452:33] and [452:35].

At best, the argument is that [452:33-35] cannot be understood without [452:36],
and the absence of statements similar to [452:36] concerning any other status.

If this were merely a case of ?one must read the whole section to understand?
that would be one situation.  It is quite another situation to require seeing
that nowhere in the standard is there a similar statement about any other status;
that is a bit much to expect of readers (not all of whom are members).

I?ll post a paper adding ?A derived-type scalar object
with no nonpointer components? to [452:38] (or its homolog in 14-007).

Thanks, everyone, for the discussion!

--

Cheers!
Dan Nagle