(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5644) [ukfortran] Comment on Corrigendum 4
Thu Jan 21 18:58:35 EST 2016
>[in places] Corrigendum 4 replaces "subcomponent" with "potential subobject
I see no inconsistency. We replaced the term for good reason.
>I believe this aspect of Corrigendum 4 is correct,
> but it does bear pondering.
>Does anybody disagree?
Yes, I disagree that there is any issue here that is worth "pondering" in
the context of the Corrigendum. Any "issues" have already been adequately
discussed in the relevant interp requests. It is a waste of mental energy
to attempt to reconstruct those interp requests from the definition of
"potential subobject component".
........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3