From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Nov 14 06:57:18 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 4B4FDCA343B; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:57:18 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BFECA342C for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:57:16 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:60308) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1L0rgC-0003ai-3K (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:57:16 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1L0rgC-0005vY-0b (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:57:16 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 14 Nov 2008 05:57:16 +0000 Date: 14 Nov 2008 05:57:16 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3684) (j3.2006) N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081114054611.13F50CA342C@www2.open-std.org> 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> <20081114030610.02C55CA343B@www2.open-std.org> <20081114054611.13F50CA342C@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 14 2008, Robert Corbett wrote: >> >> 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. > >I'm sorry, but I don't know that. It seems comparable to me. I have to fly :-) so can't check the wording, but INTENT(IN) is not the same at all. A C program will remain conforming if a const argument is passed as a second argument that is changed. And there are several weys to 'deconst' pointers, and remain conforming. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679