From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jan 21 21:39:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 8996B358755; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:39:08 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (mailhost.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81913566C1 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:39:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id u0LKd0NP012374 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO) for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:39:02 -0800 Subject: Comment on Corrigendum 4 From: Van Snyder Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Organization: Yes Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:38:59 -0800 Message-ID: <1453408739.11277.754.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-34.el6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I don't think this makes a difference. We introduced "potential subobject component" as a replacement for "subcomponent" in several places. A subcomponent is a direct component that is a subobject. A that has a final with the pointer attribute is a subobject in contexts that pertain to its pointer association status. A direct component is a component, or a direct component of a nonpointer nonallocatable component. I.e., a direct component can have the pointer attribute, and therefore a subcomponent can have the pointer attribute. A potential subobject component is a nonpointer component or a potential subobject component of a nonpointer component. I.e., it cannot have the pointer attribute, and the elaboration does not stop with allocatable components (as it does for direct components). I believe that in all the places where Corrigendum 4 replaces "subcomponent" with "potential subobject component", it doesn't matter that the described entity cannot be a pointer (usually because the described entity was already prohibited from being a pointer), i.e., the slight inconsistency is inconsequential. I believe it is important that the elaboration of "potential subobject component" does not stop with allocatable components, because the definition of "subobject" (with respect to and does not stop with allocatable components. Therefore, I believe this aspect of Corrigendum 4 is correct, but it does bear pondering. Does anybody disagree?