From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Thu Oct 14 16:26:34 2010
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id AF47EC3BA13; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:26:34 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de (mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de [129.187.254.102])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BE6C3BA03
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:26:32 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from [129.187.163.21] ([129.187.163.21] [129.187.163.21]) by mailout.lrz-muenchen.de with ESMTP for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:26:06 +0200
Message-Id: <4CB712FE.7010005@lrz.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:26:06 +0200
From: Reinhold Bader <Reinhold.Bader@lrz.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4341) [ukfortran] 10-208r1
References: <20101013225723.591E6C3BA03@www2.open-std.org> <20101014023821.EC367C3BA03@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101014023821.EC367C3BA03@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

  Am 14.10.2010 04:12, schrieb malcolm@nag-j.co.jp:

[...]
>> (2) copy object from remote image to invoking image
> That's the problem.  You can't do that.  You can't do that because it has a polymorphic allocatable subcomponent.  On another image.  Copying the object involves copying the allocatable subcomponent.  Which requires knowing what *its* type is - not just how big it is itself but also whether *it* has any further allocatable subcomponents.

I understand that. What I don't understand is how the restriction makes the problem go 
away. Presumably,

  SELECT TYPE(o_foo)
   TYPE IS (badfoo)
!----------******  (sorry for the cut-and-paste sloth from previous mail)
     CALL o_foo[2]%op(1)
   END SELECT

is legal, but also would require the above-mentioned copying of unknown amounts of data.
If it isn't legal for some other reason - why then do we need the restriction?


[...]

Regards
Reinhold