From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Oct 21 15:42:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 01D41C178E4; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:42:36 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68707C178E3 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:42:33 +0200 (CET DST) 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]:51591) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1N0bST-0005EV-Mm (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:42:33 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1N0bST-0005bN-1Y (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:42:33 +0100 Received: from [131.111.10.32] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 21 Oct 2009 14:42:33 +0100 Date: 21 Oct 2009 14:42:33 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: SC22WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4097) (j3.2006) Standard intrinsics andcoarrays Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20091021115048.B7488C178E3@www2.open-std.org> References: <20091020111544.C0F5CC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <4ADDC3E1.4030007@cray.com> <20091021055318.EF688C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021115048.B7488C178E3@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Oct 21 2009, Bill Long wrote: >Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> Bill Long wrote: >>> If an environment variable is never changed during execution of the >>> program, then I don't see an issue with GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE >>> either. >> >> Why would we expect the same environment variables to exist for the >> whole program? > >I would expect that the program launching mechanism would establish the >same environment for each image. However, as Nick's second version >proposal suggests, this might not be true for some cases. It's definitely not true, and can't be! Consider variables like SSH_TTY for something where propagating them is precisely the wrong thing to do. Or propagating some of the TERMxxx variables to systems that don't recognise them :-( >The "processor-dependent" approach is better. A user who wants portable >code would call GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE only on image 1. It might be >worth adding that suggestion to Nick's NOTE. A good point. Also for the other 'command environment' ones and DATE_AND_TIME - zones :-( I forgot COMMAND_ARGUMENT_COUNT, too, which is one of those. Regards, Nick.