[J3] sequence type equality

Steve Lionel steve at stevelionel.com
Thu Oct 15 10:13:46 EDT 2020

On 10/15/2020 8:22 AM, Bill Long via J3 wrote:
> BIND(C) types solve the problem of interacting with C.   Modules solve he problem of “same type as”.  COMMON is obsolescent and better replaced by modules.   I don’t see any ue for SEQEUNCE types any more, except that really old codes might have them (as well as arithmetic IF and a lot of other ancient junk).   Is there any use for SEQUENCE that does not already have a batter alternative?

The idea of SEQUENCE was that without it, compilers were free to reorder 
derived type components - I am not aware of any that did. SEQUENCE did 
not specify whether or not components could have padding added (for data 
alignment). Some compilers (and many users) assumed that SEQUENCE meant 
no padding, and some compilers naturally align SEQUENCE type components. 
It's a mess.

Indeed, BIND(C) solves the ordering problem. It doesn't completely solve 
the padding problem, but at least any padding must be consistent with 
the companion C processor which is what most care about.

I have always disliked the carve-out for SEQUENCE (and BIND(C)) in the 
test for "same type", but I don't see how we can get rid of it. Could we 
make that aspect obsolescent? Deleting SEQUENCE would not accomplish 
anything useful, so at most I'd support making it obsolescent for 202Y. 
I do not support deleting features.


More information about the J3 mailing list