Richard Maine wrote:
> Note that without type extension,
> the utility of such a things is somewhat limited, though I can
> think of 2 possibly useful applications of them.
I think you agree Richard that one should not prohibit something just because
one cannot find an application. I have one, which is different from yours (my
derived type definition was generated automatically by a macro and on one
case ended up having no components. I had to rewrite the macros (and
complicate them of course) just to put a dummy variable in there in that one
case...
Best,
Aleksandar
|