(j3.2006) defining a type with no components

[Bill Long]

On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Dan Nagle <danlnagle at ME.COM> wrote:

> 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].


For me, the confusion is that we have a specific subclause, 16.6.2 ?Variables that are always defined? which lists zero-size arrays and strings, but NOT variables of an empty type.  I thought this omission was intentional, but it appears otherwise. If variables of an empty type are, in fact, always defined, it would be a helpful clarification to actually say so in 16.6.2.

Cheers,
Bill




> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Suport  &                                  voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                     fax:  651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101