(j3.2006) Questions about passed-object dummy argument

[Cohen Malcolm]

I strongly disagree.  Your suggested change is not acceptable, indeed it 
opens a new can of worms we decided not to open; that is, it contains a new 
technical feature that is undesirable.

Furthermore, that the procedure is necessarily elemental is not the point of 
this constraint.  That the object must be passed to the type-bound procedure 
is the point.

There is no theorom-proving going on here.  One constraint is quite properly 
talking about procedure invocation.  The other is talking about 
passed-object dummy arguments.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: Van Snyder
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:46 PM
To: j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) Questions about passed-object dummy argument

On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 15:31 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> > But the
> >constraint is the other way around, and doesn't mention elementality.
>
> It does not need to.  The constraint has that effect.

Sure.  But working out that C1536 implies that the invoked procedure is
necessarily elemental requires proving a theorem involving C761, which
is eight clauses distant.  It would be clearer to say so.  I'd prefer
something like

C1536 If the invoked procedure is elemental and the <data-ref> is an
      array, the binding shall have a passed-object dummy argument.

This also more explicitly allows the case of the binding getting a
passed-object dummy argument without either PASS or NOPASS appearing,
which isn't obvious from the current wording.


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

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
________________________________________________________________________


-- 
.............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.