From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Jun 30 22:16:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dmo5 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dmo5@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 4767923784; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:16:54 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC44A669 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:16:51 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from mh1750-1.us.cray.com (mh1750-1.us.cray.com [172.31.74.55]) by mail1.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/gw-5323) with ESMTP id k5UKGkuc016851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:16:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mh2650-1.us.cray.com (mh2650-1.us.cray.com [172.31.74.50]) by mh1750-1.us.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/hub-5273) with ESMTP id k5UKGjQ7028849; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:16:45 -0500 Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-20-97.us.cray.com [172.31.20.97]) by mh2650-1.us.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/spool-5907) with ESMTP id k5UKGjGa019651; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:16:45 -0500 Message-ID: <44A5891B.7040306@cray.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:27:07 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrie Schonfelder CC: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3405) Re: [ukfortran] WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2 References: <20060630194010.4E06623774@open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20060630194010.4E06623774@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Not to worry. While Mike's specific syntax below fails, either character*(L) or character(L) would be conforming. And now that you have confessed, implementors now know who to blame for parameterized data types. :) Cheers, Bill Lawrie Schonfelder wrote: >I am not sure of the context but this is very much code that I intended to be legal and to mean what is obvious when I >wrote the first spec for parameterised data types. If this is illegal the whole concept is flawed below the water line. > >-- >Lawrie Schonfelder >Wirral, UK > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu >>[mailto:j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu]On Behalf Of Michael >>Ingrassia >>Sent: 30 June 2006 19:03 >>To: sc22wg5@open-std.org; j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk >>Subject: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3404) [ukfortran] WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2 >> >> >>I'm not sure I believe yet that >>a can't appear in a . >> >>The case I'd worry about is something like >> >> TYPE NEWCHAR(L) >> INTEGER, LEN :: L >> CHARACTER*L :: C >> END TYPE >> >>(which may not be legal Fortran 2003 but at least it's close!) >> >>Then NEWCHAR(L) is a derived-type-spec and L is a char-length within >>the meaning of [41:20-37], isn't it? >> >> >> --Michael I. >> >> >> -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120