From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Jan 21 22:30:37 2016
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id D1F9635725F; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:37 +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 496ED3566C1
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:30 +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 u0LLUQPU017218
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:30:27 -0800
Subject: Another comment on Corrigendum 4
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:30:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1453411826.11277.779.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

Is C1278a, as amended by Corrigendum 4, not yet correct?

  C1278a An INTENT(OUT) dummy argument of a pure procedure shall not be
         polymorphic or have a polymorphic allocatable ultimate component.

Suppose I have

type :: T1
end type T1

type :: T2
  class(t1), allocatable :: C2
end type T2

type :: T3
  type(t2), allocatable :: C3
end type T3

pure subroutine S ( A )
  type(t3), intent(out) :: A
end subroutine S

The dummy argument A is of a type that has a polymorphic allocatable
potential subobject component, but it does not have a polymorphic
allocatable ultimate component.

Do we wish to allow this, or does C1278a need more work?