From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Dec  1 04:54:30 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 6FEB1C3BA0A; Wed,  1 Dec 2010 04:54:30 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 2553 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 04:54:29 CET
Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6596CC3BA03
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed,  1 Dec 2010 04:54:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=Maru6)
	by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1PNd6c-0003Sy-C6
	for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:11:43 +0900
Message-ID: <709B51DF1852473AA7025CB25F029315@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20101108175805.5B97EC178E5@www2.open-std.org> <20101130155851.5AC3EC3BA03@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101130155851.5AC3EC3BA03@www2.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4359) (j3.2006) WG5 informal ballot reInterop. TR
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:11:51 +0900
Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3502.922
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3502.922
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Aleksandar Donev writes:

>E) Re UTI 1: I do not like "unlimited polymorphic", and in fact strongly prefer 
>that it me made very clear assumed type has nothing to do with unlimited 
>polymorphic. But the standardese may need some more work than I have time for.

But it *is* unlimited polymorphic.  It's certainly not "CLASS(*)", but it would 
be wrong to say that it has "nothing to do with [it]".  And it is certainly 
polymorphic (that is what "assumed type" actually means) and if it is not 
limited as to what type it can assume, then it is also unlimited.

Not being able to do type enquiry, and not being able to copy it, does not make 
it not unlimited polymorphic.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.