[J3] Paper 22-120r4 available

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 13:37 +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3
wrote:
> I have modified the paper to split the initial straw vote into 3
> separate straw votes.  Allowing nuanced differences in the treatment
> of type-bound procedures, data components, and kind/length
> parameters.

There are serious problems with part F.

Not the least of the problems is the difficulty for processors. Even
instantiations with identical actual template parameters within the
same scoping unit imposes an unnecessary burden. Program author(s) can
manage duplication by instantiating in modules.

If instantiations with identical actual template parameters in
different scoping are the same entity, SAVE variables, either template
variables or within template procedures, are problematic.

Suppose a template is instantiated with identical actual template
parameters in subroutine A in module M and in subroutine B in module N.

Suppose the template produces a variable X that has the SAVE attribute.

Is that variable X in subroutine A in module M the same as variable X
in subroutine B in module N, as if by storage association?

This would be undesirable. It's an interp tar baby that will cause
storage-associated migraine headaches.

Don't do part F.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20220308/1ae25b18/attachment.htm>