[J3] sequence type equality

[Robert Corbett]

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
eliminated.

Bob Corbett

> 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.
> 
> Damian  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20201014/8bdc9e4b/attachment.htm>