From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue May 10 04:39:12 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 060529DB16B; Tue, 10 May 2022 04:39:12 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C510D358C0C for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 04:39:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 26306 invoked from network); 10 May 2022 11:39:06 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 10 May 2022 11:39:06 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: References: <1600557624.762127.1652143992891.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <20220510005505.38C919DB16B@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20220510005505.38C919DB16B@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: [ukfortran] [SC22WG5.6385] WG5 Letter Ballot 2 Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:39:06 +0900 Message-ID: <022601d86417$1ea86f10$5bf94d30$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0227_01D86462.8E901710" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGOVXwAcVVxyM1PISAR5AUL2FjZ8AFKA8b8raEsSCA= Content-Language: ja Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0227_01D86462.8E901710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <<<=20 A type name can name a local entity that might seem to be subject to the new constraint. However, I do not think that a derived type is "of a type" (it is a type), and therefore, is not subject to the constraint. I find that to be a slender reed.=20 >>>=20 =20 A derived type name does not itself have a type, any more than the name = of a module (that might contain type definitions that contain data = components) has a type. In my opinion this is not a weak or slender = reed. =20 > A named local or construct data entity =20 Apart from having ambiguous grammar, there is also no such thing as a = =E2=80=9Cconstruct data entity=E2=80=9D. =20 > be of a {declared} type =20 We never say =E2=80=9Cof a declared type=E2=80=9D, as the = =E2=80=9Cdeclared=E2=80=9D part goes with the entity, not with the type. =20 Making such changes to the edit would change my vote to = =E2=80=9CN=E2=80=9D. =20 <<<=20 Specifically, it might be read as banning type names that name derived types that include default initializations of pointer components to targets. >>>=20 =20 I disagree, but in any case, how exactly do you envisage such a type = name being used unproblematically within a pure procedure (and without = creating any local entity or construct entity of such a type)? =20 Cheers, --=20 ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. ------=_NextPart_000_0227_01D86462.8E901710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<<<

A type name can name a local entity that might seem to = be
subject to the new constraint. However, I do not think = that
a derived type is "of a type" (it is a type), and = therefore,
is not subject to the constraint. I find that to be = a slender
reed.

>>>

A derived = type name does not itself have a type, any more than the name of a = module (that might contain type definitions that contain data = components) has a type. In my opinion this is not a weak or slender = reed.

> A named local or = construct data entity

Apart from = having ambiguous grammar, there is also no such thing as a = =E2=80=9Cconstruct data entity=E2=80=9D.

> be of a {declared} = type

We never say =E2=80=9Cof a declared type=E2=80=9D, as = the =E2=80=9Cdeclared=E2=80=9D part goes with the entity, not with the = type.

Making such changes to the edit would change my vote = to =E2=80=9CN=E2=80=9D.

<<<

Specifically, it might be read as banning
type names that name = derived types that include default
initializations of pointer = components to targets.

>>>

I disagree, = but in any case, how exactly do you envisage such a type name being used = unproblematically within a pure procedure (and without creating any = local entity or construct entity of such a type)?

Cheers,

--

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG = Oxford/Tokyo.

------=_NextPart_000_0227_01D86462.8E901710--