From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Mar 14 11:38:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 305ED9DB112; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:38:05 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2F0356959 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:38:01 +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-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:52438) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1S7laj-0005Aq-s7 (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:38:01 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1S7laj-0006PI-Nb (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:38:01 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 14 Mar 2012 10:38:01 +0000 Date: 14 Mar 2012 10:38:01 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4638) (j3.2006) Issue with C1255 in Interop TS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120313235112.26D4E356959@www.open-std.org> References: <20120312205547.B38759DB112@www.open-std.org><20120313085552.AED2D9DB113@www.open-std.org><20120313133844.E22BD356959@www.open-std.org><20120313170629.292739DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120313204150.507ED9DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120313235112.26D4E356959@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Mar 13 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> > There might be a problem if we think of assumed-rank variables as being > scalar. Which as it stands I guess we do think of them as being > "conditionally" scalar. Ugh. > > So can we have an elemental procedure with an assumed-rank argument? Oh > dear. > >Maybe we should just change the definition of "scalar" to exclude >assumed-rank... That makes sense to me. >> Certainly the assumed-rank and assumed-shape cases come under the "new >> sense" of interoperable. Assumed-type is different, but I think still >> not anticipated by the current text. > >It is covered in precisely the same way that CLASS(*) is. No-one has been >confused about that, so I see no reason for confusion now. I am :-( My problem is getting my head around what is implied by passing one of them (or, worse, a derived type containing one of them with the POINTER attribute) to an assumed-type dummy. I don't think that it's a big deal, because any non-trivial use of assumed-type is outside the standard, but I get very confused thinking about it. Regards, Nick Maclaren.