(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5646) [ukfortran] Another comment on Corrigendum 4
Fri Jan 22 02:15:50 EST 2016
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:45 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> Thinking further about Van's example, it would seem that in
> > C1278a An INTENT(OUT) dummy argument of a pure procedure shall not be
> > polymorphic or have a polymorphic allocatable ultimate component.
> what we need instead of "ultimate component" is our new term "potential
> subobject component".
"potential subobject component" applies to types, not objects, so we
need "shall not be polymorphic with a declared (dynamic?) type that has
a polymorphic allocatable potential subobject component" or something
Would "subobject" work instead of "ultimate component"? "subcomponent"
More information about the J3