From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Sun Jul 25 22:48:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 7DE60C3BA01; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:48:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de (mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de [129.187.254.106]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05A1C178E6 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:48:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail.lrz-muenchen.de ([129.187.254.85] [129.187.254.85]) by mailout.lrz-muenchen.de with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:47:56 +0200 Received: from p5de97a97.dip.t-dialin.net ([93.233.122.151]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user a2832ba) by webmail.lrz-muenchen.de with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <1331.93.233.122.151.1280090876.squirrel@webmail.lrz-muenchen.de> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Executing a type-bound procedure on a coindexed object From: Reinhold.Bader@lrz.de To: j3@j3-fortran.org Cc: sc22wg5@open-std.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Dear all, NOTE 12.16 of the draft 2008 standard appears to imply that a type-bound procedure may be invoked on a polymorphic coindexed object: "When resolving type-bound procedure references, constraints on the use of coindexed objects ensure that the coindexed object (on the remote image) has the same dynamic type as the corresponding object on the local image. Thus a processor can resolve the type-bound procedure using the coarray variable on its own image and pass the coindexed object as the actual argument." However, according to 12.5.2.4, para 2: "The dummy argument shall be type compatible with the actual argument. If the actual argument is a polymorphic coindexed object, the dummy argument shall not be polymorphic." Considering that the passed argument dummy is required to be polymorphic (at least in case the type is extensible), this restriction appears to contradict the implication of the NOTE. The following question arises: Is it hence required to manually resolve the type using a SELECT TYPE statement before invoking the TBP? Regards Reinhold