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

[Malcolm Cohen]

>We added "potential subobject component" because

,,,

> not because "subobject" didn't work for objects.

Wrong.

>The definition of "subobject" does not stop at allocatable,

It does stop at unallocated allocatables, which is the reason why we have 
"potential subobject component"!!!  The word "potential" is important here, 
if "subobject" by itself "worked" we would not have had it.

I wrote:
> (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.

Van replies:
>I thought 4.5.1p5 was the definition.  Is the summary of it in 1.3.35.3
>the complete and correct definition?

1.3 is terms and definitions.  Every defined term in the standard is defined 
in 1.3 (often by reference to other subclauses, but not in this case).

>I don't object to using potential subobject component, but it seems that
>subobject would work.

Except that it does not.

>We could write a precise and complete definition of "subobject" that
>would be a bit more informative than 1.3.44:

And get it wrong.

Let's not attempt very tricky rewrites of terms to achieve an impossible 
aim.

Cheers,
-- 
...........................Malcolm.