From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Dec 9 18:23:27 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 A567ACA343D; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:23:27 +0100 (CET) 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 www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B566DC178D6 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:23:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from beaver.us.cray.com (beaver.us.cray.com [172.30.74.51]) by mail1.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/gw-5323) with ESMTP id mB9HNOHu015293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from CFEXFE01.us.cray.com (cfexfe01.us.cray.com [172.30.74.93]) by beaver.us.cray.com (8.13.8/8.13.3/hub-5273) with ESMTP id mB9HNNYh010880; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:24 -0600 Received: from mh-dhcp-172-31-16-160.us.cray.com ([172.31.16.160]) by CFEXFE01.us.cray.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:24 -0600 Message-ID: <493EAA0F.5000100@cray.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:25:35 -0600 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3787) N1761, TYPE(*), BIND(C) and arrays References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081202130345.82E16C178E1@www2.open-std.org> <20081209122438.AE57DCA3439@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20081209122438.AE57DCA3439@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:23:24.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7214700:01C95A22] X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk N.M. Maclaren wrote: > This is something that I subconsciously realised when reading N1761, > but only formulated what it was fairly recently. Fortran does not have > the concept of a called procedure knowing anything about the properties > of its actual arguments (i.e. the objects and expressions in the calling > procedure). The SOLE information available to a called procedure about > its arguments are in its OWN declaration (i.e. the properties of its > dummy arguments). > That paragraph is so completely wrong that I'm just dumbfounded. Do you mean that if I inquire about the allocation status of a dummy variable at the beginning of a subroutine, I get no information about the allocation status of the corresponding actual argument? Or the pointer association status of a pointer? Or the extents of an assumed-shape array? None of this information is explicit in the declaration of the dummy argument. Of course, these are exactly the cases the TR is intended to address. No wonder you are finding it so hard to understand. Cheers, Bill -- 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