11-166r2 To: J3 From: John Reid for Nick Maclaren Subject: Interop TR: second part of notes on type(*) - example A.1.5 Date: 2011 June 1th Reference: N1854, N1820 There has been a great deal of cross-purposes discussion on many aspects that come down to people not closely involved in this group misunderstanding the purpose and intent of type(*). Arising from this, I still think that example A.1.5 is a really, but REALLY, bad idea. Yes, it is possible, but it doesn't even mention the legion of restrictions, 'gotchas' and even ambiguities that it brings in. My main concern is that it will encourage some of the more knuckle-dragging but intelligent programmers to start using it as a way of implementing a form of dynamic EQUIVALENCE (and not just for the Fortran 77 types, either) and - heaven help us! - propagating that view on the Web, in 'bulletin boards' and even in books. But perhaps I am being too cynical .... Since first writing this, I have reread N1820, and the example actually conflicts with constraint 2! Since that document was the formalisation of the consensus arising from a lot of discussion, we shouldn't include such an example lightly. Edits to N1854: --------------- [34:16-44] Delete example A.1.5.