[J3] sequence type equality
rpcorbett at att.net
Thu Oct 15 02:00:27 EDT 2020
Note that BIND(C) types have
almost all of the same issues
as sequence types and a few
extra besides. There will be
very little benefit from
eliminating sequence types
unless BIND(C) types are also
> On Oct 14, 2020, at 10:48 PM, Damian Rouson via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:27 PM Bill Long via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>> Relevance: Since the advent of modules 3 decades ago, I’ve never se use of, or relevance of SEQUENCE types.
>> Mystery: Why is SEQUENCE not in the Obsolescent list?
> I'm curious about this too. Currently, obsolescent features are features for which better methods existed in a previous standard. If a feature has limited utility, however, it's unlikely that a better method would ever be developed so we might need to expand how we describe the nature of obsolescence.
> Like Bill, I have never seen SEQUENCE in use other than in compiler documentation or textbooks. I find descriptions online of two use cases (see http://k2.chem.uh.edu/F95_Reference.pdf):
> 1. Argument association of equivalent types, and
> 2. Sequence association in COMMON blocks.
> Use case 1 seems similar to EQUIVALENCE, which is obsolescent. Use case 2 is also obsolescent. Unless I'm misreading or "misunderestimating" the uses, I think there's a strong case to be made for classifying SEQUENCE as obsolescent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the J3