(j3.2006) Parent component of extension of abstract type

[Van Snyder]

On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 21:17 -0800, Damian Rouson wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Bill Long <longb at cray.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Deferred usually means ?doesn?t exist yet?.   So, I agree that
> invoking a deferred tbp is a not a good idea. 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence above, but not the second one unless
> I?m missing something.  In the email I just sent in response to Tom?s
> email, I invoke a deferred binding at line 18.  But I?m guessing you
> mean it?s not a good idea to invoke a deferred tbp on a polymorphic
> object whose dynamic type has not been established in some way, in
> which case I agree.  I establish the dynamic type by source allocation
> at line 42 in the previous example.

The restrictions on abstract types prevent invoking a deferred binding
that has not been overridden.  I believe they're stronger than
necessary, as I'll explain in a message I was composing when this one
arrived.

> Damian