From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Dec  8 19:31:21 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id CEC78C178E5; Mon,  8 Dec 2008 19:31:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D35C178E4
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon,  8 Dec 2008 19:31:20 +0100 (CET)
X-Attachments: None
Received: from cyrus2.llnl.gov ([128.15.97.105])
  by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2008 10:31:19 -0800
From: Aleksandar Donev <donev1@llnl.gov>
Organization: LLNL
To: "WG5, " <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3751) Response on the TR29113 draft N1761
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:31:19 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
References: <20081207203535.92039C178D6@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081207203535.92039C178D6@www2.open-std.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200812081031.19839.donev1@llnl.gov>
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

I am still processing Reinhold's proposals, but this I have thought=20
about already:

> Issue 2 - polymorphism of assumed-type entity:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Since no changes to the definition of C_LOC() have been introduced,
> and this function is used to cast an object of TYPE(*) to a usable
> type, the text beginning in line 92 of N1761 should be replaced by
I am not sure I understand. If the dummy is TYPE(*), and the actual is=20
polymorphic, then the assumed type of the dummy becomes the dynamic=20
type of the actual. It is no longer polymorphic once you are inside the=20
procedure. So what is the problem with doing C_LOC on it?

> "In the association of actual and dummy arguments, an assumed-type
> =A0dummy argument is type and kind compatible with a non-polymorphic
> =A0actual data argument of any type."
I think there be some restriction that the type should be interoperable=20
if the procedure is BIND(C). But I am not sure it can be made to work.=20
It definitely requires more work.

Best,
Aleks