J3/99-149r1

Date:    28th May 1999
To:      J3
From:    Malcolm Cohen
Subject: Unresolved issue 35


1. Introduction

The current syntax allows a CONTAINS in a derived type to be followed by an
empty type-bound-procedure-part, or just a PRIVATE statement (but no
procedures).  This appears to have no functionality - the effect is the
same as when the CONTAINS (and PRIVATE) are omitted altogether.  Moreover,
this is inconsistent with the CONTAINS statement in other contexts - when
introducing an internal-procedure-part at least one internal procedure must
be present, and when introducing a module-procedure-part at least one module
procedure must be present.

Moreover, the syntax that was passed (98-152r1) requires at least one
type-bound procedure binding to be present.  It appears that no-one noticed
the change in syntax in 98-186r1 (apparently including the author, since
this
change is not called out).

Therefore I propose requiring at least one type-bound procedure binding to
be
specified if a CONTAINS statement appears in a derived type definition.

2. Edits

{Make the <proc-binding-construct> presence mandatory when CONTAINS is
present}
[44:6] Before "[" insert, on a separate line, "<proc-binding-construct>".

{Delete the J3 note}
[44:7-13] Delete.