|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Colin Paul GlosterColin Paul Gloster Date: Jul 10, 2008 07:10
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Richard Maine wrote:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Colin Paul Gloster ACM.org> wrote: |
|[a very long post including quite a lot of quotations of me, among |
|others] |
| |
|I'm afraid that this post was too long and rambling for me to follow it.|
|I could not detect any coherent message in it, other than perhaps a hint|
|of randomly assembling quotes that sounded negative about Fortran (often|
|out of context, at least for some of mine)." |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Dear Richard and everyone else,
I did not intentionally take quotes about Fortran out of
context. If you can spare the time, then please help me to learn
Fortran by explaining my misconceptions.
|
| Show full article (5.01Kb) |
|
| | 16 Comments |
|
|
Author: fjfj Date: Jul 10, 2008 07:57
On 10 juil, 16:10, Colin Paul Gloster ACM.org>
wrote:> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Richard Maine wrote:
>
> |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"Colin Paul Gloster ACM.org> wrote: |
> |[a very long post including quite a lot of quotations of me, among |
> |others] |
> | |
> |I'm afraid that this post was too long and rambling for me to follow it.|
> |I could not detect any coherent message in it, other than perhaps a hint|
> |of randomly assembling quotes that sounded negative about Fortran (often|
> |out of context, at least for some of mine)." |
> |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> Dear Richard and everyone else,
>
> I did not intentionally take quotes about Fortran out of
> context. If you can spare the time, then please help me to learn
> Fortran by explaining my misconceptions. ...
|
| Show full article (6.65Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: nospamnospam Date: Jul 10, 2008 09:47
fj wrote:
> On 10 juil, 16:10, Colin Paul Gloster ACM.org>
> wrote:>> Could Fortran 90 allocatables be left in an undefined state?
>
> No. Either an allocatable is allocated or not.
That is true now, but wasn't so in f90, which the question specifically
asked about. But then, this is one of the many things in the set of
questions (at least now I can read them) that strike me as being either
out of context or otherwise irrelevant to current programming. This was
true only of f90. Prior to f90, there were no allocatables. In f95, this
"feature" was fixed. You won't find any f90 compilers currently being
supported today. If you manage to find some old compiler that still has
this issue, and you are using that compiler, then I think that pretty
conclusive evidence that you don't care about "minor" issues like
reliability and support. All quality compilers with active support were
long ago upgraded.
|
| Show full article (5.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dick HendricksonDick Hendrickson Date: Jul 10, 2008 10:03
Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Richard Maine wrote:
> |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"Colin Paul Gloster ACM.org> wrote: |
> |[a very long post including quite a lot of quotations of me, among |
> |others] |
> | |
> |I'm afraid that this post was too long and rambling for me to follow it.|
> |I could not detect any coherent message in it, other than perhaps a hint|
> |of randomly assembling quotes that sounded negative about Fortran (often|
> |out of context, at least for some of mine)." |
> |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> Dear Richard and everyone else,
>
> I did not intentionally take quotes about Fortran out of
> context. If you can spare the time, then please help me to learn
> Fortran by explaining my misconceptions.
>
> |------------------------------------------------------------------------| ...
|
| Show full article (9.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Craig PowersCraig Powers Date: Jul 10, 2008 10:26
Dick Hendrickson wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>>
>> Does Fortran always automatically check if the INTERFACE actually
>> corresponds to the code?
>>
> Depends on the compiler, but in general NO. I think all
> compilers will detect an explicit assignment to a dummy
> argument that has INTENT(IN) in the subroutine; I'm not sure
> any will detect an assignment if the dummy is passed on
> to another routine and that routine (illegally) assigns to
> its argument.
Is that actually possible without lying about an interface? i.e. Is it
possible to pass an INTENT(IN) dummy as an actual argument to a more
permissive dummy argument in another routine (no intent or intent OUT)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: James GilesJames Giles Date: Jul 10, 2008 12:51
Dick Hendrickson wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
...
>> Are "there are a number of things the Fortran standard leaves
>> unspecified that it should pin down"?
>>
> Sure, Maybe, No. Take your pick. Generally, I'd say no.
> I think the balance between execution speed, compile time
> checking, and user responsibility is pretty good.
The above is a direct quote from one of my articles and is *way*
out of context. Yes, there are a number of things the Fortran
standard leaves unspecified that it should pin down. For example
(and I think this is the original context), integer arithmetic should
be exact if it doesn't overflow. No one would accept an implementation
that did otherwise, but the standard should actually require it.
Many other languages also don't explicitly require such things.
I'm not certain that Ada does.
--
J. Giles
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: James GilesJames Giles Date: Jul 10, 2008 12:55
Craig Powers wrote:
> Dick Hendrickson wrote:
>> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>>>
>>> Does Fortran always automatically check if the INTERFACE actually
>>> corresponds to the code?
>>>
>> Depends on the compiler, but in general NO. I think all
>> compilers will detect an explicit assignment to a dummy
>> argument that has INTENT(IN) in the subroutine; I'm not sure
>> any will detect an assignment if the dummy is passed on
>> to another routine and that routine (illegally) assigns to
>> its argument.
>
> Is that actually possible without lying about an interface? i.e. Is
> it possible to pass an INTENT(IN) dummy as an actual argument to a
> more permissive dummy argument in another routine (no intent or
> intent OUT)
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dick HendricksonDick Hendrickson Date: Jul 10, 2008 13:45
James Giles wrote:
> Craig Powers wrote:
>> Dick Hendrickson wrote:
>>> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>>>> Does Fortran always automatically check if the INTERFACE actually
>>>> corresponds to the code?
>>>>
>>> Depends on the compiler, but in general NO. I think all
>>> compilers will detect an explicit assignment to a dummy
>>> argument that has INTENT(IN) in the subroutine; I'm not sure
>>> any will detect an assignment if the dummy is passed on
>>> to another routine and that routine (illegally) assigns to
>>> its argument.
>> Is that actually possible without lying about an interface? i.e. Is
>> it possible to pass an INTENT(IN) dummy as an actual argument to a
>> more permissive dummy argument in another routine (no intent or
>> intent OUT)
>
> It's not permitted. The standard doesn't require implementations to
> verify that it's not done. That is, it's not one of the kinds of error ...
|
| Show full article (1.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Craig PowersCraig Powers Date: Jul 10, 2008 13:45
James Giles wrote:
> Craig Powers wrote:
>> Dick Hendrickson wrote:
>>> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>>>> Does Fortran always automatically check if the INTERFACE actually
>>>> corresponds to the code?
>>>>
>>> Depends on the compiler, but in general NO. I think all
>>> compilers will detect an explicit assignment to a dummy
>>> argument that has INTENT(IN) in the subroutine; I'm not sure
>>> any will detect an assignment if the dummy is passed on
>>> to another routine and that routine (illegally) assigns to
>>> its argument.
>> Is that actually possible without lying about an interface? i.e. Is
>> it possible to pass an INTENT(IN) dummy as an actual argument to a
>> more permissive dummy argument in another routine (no intent or
>> intent OUT)
>
> It's not permitted. The standard doesn't require implementations to
> verify that it's not done. That is, it's not one of the kinds of error ...
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: nospamnospam Date: Jul 10, 2008 14:22
Dick Hendrickson att.net> wrote:
> James Giles wrote:
>> Craig Powers wrote:
>>> Is that actually possible without lying about an interface? i.e. Is
>>> it possible to pass an INTENT(IN) dummy as an actual argument to a
>>> more permissive dummy argument in another routine...
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
