Add proposal for protected attribute in derived types

[aradi]

No description provided.

[certik]

@aradi, thanks for submitting this. I have a few questions. Wouldn't your example work with current Fortran already? I would like to see an example which does not work with current Fortran, and shows how the "protected" attribute improves things.

[certik]

Ah I see --- it's something like const in C++? It makes the attribute constant / read only. I thought this was about making the member "private".

[aradi]

I added some more explanation. The case presented would be only possible, if the component were made public, but that would jeopardize data consistency.

[aradi]

Yes, it was meant like const in C++ (and not as protected in C++ 😉 )

[zbeekman]

I've wanted this for a long time. Writing a ton of getter methods is a pain in the ass and a waste of time. An attribute that would only allow modification by TBPs would be really nice, and would allow for direct reading of UDT components.

[certik]

@aradi I did not forget about this PR --- I first want to figure out a workflow with the committee how to consider proposals such as this one. Things will start moving in the next few weeks.

[aradi]

All fine, thanks in advance and especially thanks for all your efforts into involving the community!

[certik]

@aradi, can you comment on #122 and (hopefully) list it among your top 5? We'll now start drafting proposals, so we'll figure out some good template and help you finish it, and you can help us with other proposals also.

[zjibben]

This is something I frequently wish we had in Fortran. I'd like to submit this proposal for the meeting next week, and I think it's in pretty good shape. There hasn't been much discussion--is there anything we should iron out first?

[aradi]

@zjibben Thanks! I think, the proposal is trivial enough not to have side effects or unwanted implications, this is why there was not much discussion about it.

[jvdp1]

Thanks for this proposal. It is something I tried intuitively once (without success of course ;) ), before reading one more time the documentation of protected.

[certik]

I assigned to @zjibben to merge when he thinks it's ready.

[zjibben]

I went ahead and merged. I agree, I think this is straightforward enough to not need more clarification, but if anyone thinks of something please leave a comment or submit a PR! I’ll submit this weekend otherwise. Thanks for the proposal @aradi !