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

[Cohen Malcolm]

(1) No, subobject does not work, for exactly the same reason that we just 
added "potential subobject component".

(2) "potential subobject component" applies to objects as well as types. 
Just look at the definition - no limitation to types is implied inferred or 
stated.  Objects as well as types have components, and thus have potential 
subobject components.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: Van Snyder
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 4:15 PM
To: j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5646) [ukfortran] Another comment on 
Corrigendum 4

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,


_______________________________________________
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, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.