>Please note my suggestions are not intended to affect "type" itself in any way.
>
>My focus was exclusively on "dynamic type" and what it means, hence the semantics of it - nothing else.
However "type" means "both the declared and the dynamic type".
So this would be a massive change to the language.
If you want a new facility, which you apparently do, please don't try to insist on "repurposing" (changing the meaning of) an old facility, just ask for the new facility. You can certainly make suggestions as to what kind of technical solution you have in mind, but at the end of the day it is up to the committees to decide *how* any new facility is best provided. We will need the "use cases" to be able to understand what the fundamental requirements really are.
Cheers,
--
..............Malcolm Cohen, Project Editor, ISO/IEC Fortran.
|