(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5646) [ukfortran] Another comment on Corrigendum 4

Van Snyder van.snyder
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
like that.

Would "subobject" work instead of "ultimate component"?  "subcomponent"
doesn't work.

> Cheers,

More information about the J3 mailing list