[J3] Allowing generic names for actual procedure arguments?

[Van Snyder]

On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:14 +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3
wrote:
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> Currently the standard requires actual procedure arguments to be
> specific names.     When the corresponding dummy procedure has an
> implicit interface, this constraint is essential.    However, I do
> not see
>  any fundamental reason why one could not have generic resolution
> work in the case of dummy procedure arguments with explicit
> interfaces.     Is this something that could be pursued?
> 
>  
> 
> Background:  This issue ties into some of the discussion by generics
> subgroup regarding treatment of generic names in templates.   E.g.,
> it might be convenient, esp. in light of the Japanese proposal, to
> “automatically”
>  promote specific names to generic names in templates.  This is
> particularly appealing if the constraint mentioned above is
> weakened.     It would also be natural to do this for module
> procedures.         Early days, and we may well not have thought of
> all
>  the gotchas.  

One of the "gotchas" relating to generic procedures with generic type
is that, with automatic instantiation, all of the types for which they
are to be used must be accessible. Withe explicit instantiation, only
the types mentioned in the instantiation need be accessible at the
point of instantiation. 
> Cheers,
>  
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20231120/8f693529/attachment-0001.htm>