From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Nov 14 04:06:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id AB12ECA5FF1; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:06:09 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6A9CA343B for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:06:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L0p0L-0006n4-Lu for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:05:53 +0900 Message-ID: <491CEB33.2030001@nag-j.co.jp> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:06:27 +0900 From: Malcolm Cohen User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Windows/2008022014) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3682) (j3.2006) N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum References: <49137AD3.1070402@lrz.de> <20081111224927.8201CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081111234923.517C5C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081112001017.26EB3C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081112091351.6581CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <491BCB6F.8040406@sun.com> <20081113072205.9063AC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <491BDF12.8050108@sun.com> <491CD5CB.4030003@cray.com> <20081114021049.6CFDEC178D6@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20081114021049.6CFDEC178D6@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Robert Corbett continues to complain about PROTECTED. Well, excuse me if we thought users would prefer to be able to pass PROTECTED variables to INTENT(IN) dummy arguments. It's not unreasonable to provide something less safe instead of providing something that's perfectly safe but in practice is nearly useless. As I said (and you admitted), the situation is no worse than INTENT(IN). It's not at all like C const as you must know. It's 20 years too late to be quibbling about INTENT(IN), but if you want to argue about that, well in my opinion it wasn't possible to design something that gave perfect safety that couldn't be subverted at the same time as fulfilling the other design goals of INTENT(IN). In any case, the user has to deliberately hide stuff from the compiler to get it to do "bad things" to a PROTECTED variable. It's not like this is hard to detect if he wants to detect it. Bah humbug and merry christmas season. Cheers, -- ....................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.