(j3.2006) LinkedIn Question re Why TYPEALIAS Not in Fortran 2003

[Van Snyder]

On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 18:48 -0600, Craig Dedo wrote:
> Everyone:
> 
>             Today in the LinkedIn Fortran Programmers Group, Espen
> Myklebust posted this question.
> 
> [Begin post]
> 
> I came by a pdf with the committee draft of the F03 standard, and in
> there I see a TYPEALIAS statement that must have been dropped quite
> late in the process.
> 
> Does anyone with (inside) knowledge about that process care to comment
> on why it didn't make it into the final F03 standard?
> 
> [End of post]
> 
>  
> 
>             I have forgotten why TYPEALIAS was dropped late in the
> process.  Does anyone remember why this happened?

1.  It was the wrong thing to do.  New types (not synonymns) are more
useful, and can do everything that type aliases can do -- but not vice
versa.

2.  The material in the draft was wrong.

3.  We didn't have time, interest, or energy to make it right.

> 
>  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Craig T. Dedo
> 
> 17130 W. Burleigh Place
> 
> P. O. Box 423                         Mobile Phone:  (414) 412-5869
> 
> Brookfield, WI   53008-0423    E-mail:  <craig at ctdedo.com>
> 
> USA
> 
> Linked-In:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3