From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Aug 18 23:04:40 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 BF41EC178E5; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:04:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp.cims.nyu.edu (SMTP.CIMS.NYU.EDU [128.122.80.9]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BB0C178D9 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from donev.cims.nyu.edu (donev.cims.nyu.edu [128.122.80.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cims.nyu.edu (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7IL4b1e018376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C6C4AE5.5070502@courant.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:04:37 -0400 From: Aleksandar Donev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 , WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4310) Executing a type-bound procedure on a coindexed object References: <20100729154103.E2BD3C3BA01@www2.open-std.org> <4C51AC7D.2000805@lrz.de> <20100730154302.65455C3BA0E@www2.open-std.org> <20100730160754.31A15C3BA0E@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100730160754.31A15C3BA0E@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 07/30/10 12:07, Reinhold.Bader@lrz.de wrote: > I agree. But in this case there does appear to be an inconsistency in the > standard, at least with respect to what was intended (I think :-)). The > way out would be to either drop the additional restriction, or to prohibit > TBP calls on polymorphic coindexed objects altogether. > I tried to understand all the different constraints and failed. It seems to me the intent was to not allow any use of coindexed polymorphic objects beyond accessing components that are not polymorphic (i.e., anything that would require looking into type tables). The note is also technically correct. Please remind me (sorry, my books are in boxes so harder to look stuff up)---does there have to be a passed argument for every TBP? Or can you simply use an object to do type dispatch but not actually pass it to the procedure? In any case it begs the question why the user would write x[1]%tbp instead of x%tbp when the types must match. Perhaps prohibiting it all together is better for now. Best, Aleks -- Aleksandar Donev, Assistant Professor of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Office: 909 Warren Weaver Hall, New York University E-mail: donev@courant.nyu.edu Phone: (510) 910-0891; Fax: (212) 995-4121 Mailing address: 251 Mercer St, New York, NY 10012 Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev