[J3] Letter ballot #38 is overdue, please vote ASAP

Malcolm Cohen malcolm at nag-j.co.jp
Fri Jan 28 08:43:20 UTC 2022

Hi folks,


Sorry I've been busy and not chased this up. Any votes that arrive before I
next have a chance to work on it (early next week) will be counted.


Please vote now!


Steve has already voted for me.


On F18/025, I do have some comments.

1.	Robert argued that the restriction was undesirable because some
checks were not possible at compile time, because users can provide
incorrect interface blocks. Well, if we're letting people have incorrect
interface blocks (i.e. they are lying to the compiler) to evade the
restriction, they can just describe an impure procedure as PURE, and thus
escape *all* the purity requirements. The fact that interface blocks cannot
be checked at compile time does not make the purity requirements less
useful, and is just completely immaterial to the question at hand.
2.	The question boils down to whether two types that behave differently
are "the same type". In computer science, types that behave differently are
not the same type. Did we intend to make a "type equality" rule that
violates both computer science and common sense? The evidence available,
including the ambiguity of the current wording, would suggest not.




..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20220128/a8a985c0/attachment.htm>

More information about the J3 mailing list