08-244r1
To: J3
From: Van Snyder, originally from Michael Ingrassia
Subject: Public Comment J32030
Date: 2008 August 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter: Robert Corbett
Subject: "derived-type equivalence"
The idea of describing derived type equivalence in
terms of data entities, as is done in Section 4.5.1.3
of the Fortran 2008 draft is screwy. Type equivalence
should be described in terms of the types and the
derived-type definitions that define them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
J3 response:
There is no subclause 4.5.1.3, nor a subclause 4.1.3.5, nor a subclause
4.1.5. Subclause 4.5.3.1 is not germane to this question. The only
subclause that appears to be germane is 4.5.2.4.
The interesting question is almost always "do these two objects have
the same type." The most obvious examples are argument association,
pointer assignment, intrinsic assignment and storage association.
We arrive at the same conclusion by reasoning in terms of objects or
in terms of types.
J3 chooses not to change its descriptive model of type equivalence.