Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2018 lists in A.2 storage association, including sequence attribute, statement, and type as deprecated features. The Authors define a deprecated feature as a feature that became redundant (for sequence, specifically, since Fortran 95) and whose use is not recommended. They say that deprecated feature have potential to be marked as obsolescent by the Standard, which in turn, opens a path toward deletion. The Standard, however, doesn’t say anything about deprecated features, only obsolescent and deleted features. The sequence attribute, statement, type are defined as usual, without note of them becoming obsolescent in the future, as far as I could find. So, what does it really mean for Metcalf, Reid, & Cohen to list deprecated features? Are these their personal recommendations that are not necessarily aligned with the Standard? CC @m_b_metcalf

I think we answer this question in Section A.1. Regards, Mike Metcalf

Indeed, the relevant sentence is: We note that his decision to group certain features into an appendix and to deprecate their use is ours alone, and does not have the actual or implied approval of either WG5 or J3. Time to recalibrate my selective reading. :sweat_smile:

With this question resolved, the follow-up would be: What is the alternative for sequence if it should be avoided? [image] milancurcic: The Authors define a deprecated feature as a feature that became redundant (for sequence , specifically, since Fortran 95) and whose use is not recommended. I don’t find a language feature that makes sequence redundant, only bind(c) comes close, but it is not the same.

If you read the relevant section, it is evident that the entire concept of storage association is deprecated. There will be no need for SEQUENCE attribute if COMMON and EQUIVALENCE are not used. At least that’s how I understand it.

I’m using sequence not for the purpose of explicit memory management, but for its property to make a derived type non-extendible. I’m not aware of a modifier other than bind(c) which can add this property to a derived type, but with sequence I can still have allocatable members in the type.

There is a paper seen by J3 for a SEALED attribute, titled “Option to derive an inextensible type”, considered “out-of-order features”. https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/19-186.txt https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/minutes219.txt

@FortranFan has mentioned this proposal on at least two occasions: Programming errors by language - #6 by FortranFan High Performance Fortran (HPF) history and lessons - #22 by FortranFan

As I understand A.2, it deprecates sequence in the context of storage association, and it does not consider that it can also be used to prohibit extending a type (a use that I didn’t think of before stdlib/#320). sealed is the way to go, but in the meantime I think it’s okay to use sequence as a hack as long as it’s documented.

Correct, but that prohibition is stated on page 293. Regards, Mike

I guess another use/meaning of sequence attribute in derived types was to make two identical definitions of the type (in different scopes) same type. This is obviously made redundant by putting the definition into a module.

What is the status of the sequence attribute and statement?

Help

ivanpribec February 15, 2021, 9:03pm 8

@FortranFan has mentioned this proposal on at least two occasions:

Programming errors by language - #6 by FortranFan
High Performance Fortran (HPF) history and lessons - #22 by FortranFan

Topic		Replies	Views
Why separate TYPE and CLASS keywords in modern Fortran? Advocacy	69	1842	July 5, 2026
Backwards compatibility in different programming languages Uncategorized	132	5306	November 2, 2022
Derived type definition locations Help	19	812	December 3, 2024
Question about old-style declarations Uncategorized	3	217	April 12, 2024
Separation of declaration and initiation of variables Help	49	2014	June 12, 2022

What is the status of the sequence attribute and statement?

Related topics