From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Dec 6 21:14:33 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 DB3F4C3BA37; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:14:33 +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 0ADC1C3BA1C for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:14:32 +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 oB6KEUb0002140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:14:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CFD4426.90301@courant.nyu.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:14:30 -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: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4381) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot re Interop. TR References: <20101108175805.5B97EC178E5@www2.open-std.org> <20101206103130.1AE8AC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20101206134148.834A7C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <4CFD0D53.8030501@cray.com> <20101206172155.862D5C178DA@www2.open-std.org> <4CFD2A4D.6070600@cray.com> <20101206190320.30175C3BA1C@www2.open-std.org> <4CFD42C0.1050503@cray.com> In-Reply-To: <4CFD42C0.1050503@cray.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 12/06/10 15:08, Bill Long wrote: > I do not see anything that prohibits this. Yes, it seems that way, but not clear if by design or accident. In particular, there is a prohibition against the type of x being "exotic" (e.g., having type parameters). The dynamic type may, at the point of the call. Presumably this could be checked at runtime during debugging runs. But in general it won't be checked, so the type info in the descriptor will again be less-than-useful. > However, if the dummy were allocatable or pointer, then for the sub(x) > call, both the dummy and actual need to be "unlimited polymorphic". > This is nominally the case if TYPE(*) is unlimited polymorphic, but I > see this as one of those cases where the base standard might need > modification to require CLASS(*) instead of "unlimited polymorphic". Yes, good point, that needs some thought too. 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