From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Dec 1 15:58:56 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 B81BDC3BA0A; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:58:56 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp.cims.nyu.edu (SMTP.CIMS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.100]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE2AC3BA06 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:58:55 +0100 (CET) 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 oB1Ewr5o003580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:58:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CF662AD.3020701@courant.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:58:53 -0500 From: Aleksandar Donev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Fwd: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4360) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot reInterop. TR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030000070100000309040306" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030000070100000309040306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forgot the reply all for WG5, sorry... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4360) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot reInterop. TR Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:55:40 -0500 From: Aleksandar Donev Reply-To: fortran standards email list for J3 To: fortran standards email list for J3 On 11/30/2010 10:11 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> 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. Well, sure, since you have defined it. Perhaps that definition was fine when we only had CLASS(*). I am proposing that it ought to be changed now to *only* include CLASS(*), and TYPE(*) be separate. Polymorphic should mean an object that can have different dynamic types. Assumed-type objects should be classified as having no type. It is different from "has a type that I do not know at compile time". I know it requires more work to invent this new kind of untyped objected, but I think it is important, IMHO, 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: (212) 992-7315; Fax: (212) 995-4121 Mailing address: 251 Mercer St, New York, NY 10012 Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@j3-fortran.org http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 --------------030000070100000309040306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forgot the reply all for WG5, sorry...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4360) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot reInterop. TR
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:55:40 -0500
From: Aleksandar Donev <donev@courant.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@j3-fortran.org>
To: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@j3-fortran.org> 


On 11/30/2010 10:11 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> 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.
Well, sure, since you have defined it. Perhaps that definition was fine 
when we only had CLASS(*). I am proposing that it ought to be changed 
now to *only* include CLASS(*), and TYPE(*) be separate. Polymorphic 
should mean an object that can have different dynamic types. 
Assumed-type objects should be classified as having no type. It is 
different from "has a type that I do not know at compile time". I know 
it requires more work to invent this new kind of untyped objected, but I 
think it is important,
IMHO,
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: (212) 992-7315; Fax: (212) 995-4121
Mailing address: 251 Mercer St, New York, NY 10012
Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev
_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3@j3-fortran.org
http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
--------------030000070100000309040306--