From ljm@slac.stanford.edu Tue Mar 28 07:21:24 1995 Received: from SCSW6.SLAC.Stanford.EDU by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA08301 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Wed, 29 Mar 1995 01:18:33 +0200 Received: from [134.79.128.74] (MOZART.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) by SCSW6.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #6987) id <01HOO9X7EH5S002QZF@SCSW6.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 15:19:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 15:21:24 -0800 From: ljm@slac.stanford.edu (Leonard J. Moss) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.773) Pointers to procedures X-Sender: ljm@popserv To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Message-Id: X-Envelope-To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 At 17:56 3/28/95, John.Reid wrote: >[...suggestion for interfaces inside type definitions omitted...] > >What do people think? Is this an important need? Are there any snags? >Does it do all that is wanted? Procedure pointers/variables [I really don't care what we call them] are indeed an important need, but permitting them only in derived types is not an adequate solution. In any case, this is far to big a requirement to be considered for F95. -- Leonard J. Moss | My views don't necessarily Stanford Linear Accelerator Center | reflect those of SLAC, MS 97; P.O. Box 4349; Stanford, CA 94309 | Stanford or the DOE