From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Mar 14 23:57:36 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 911203566C5; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:57:36 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5550C35660A for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:57:35 +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]:46348) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1S7x8R-0007sj-EN (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:57:35 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1S7x8R-0000VJ-Df (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:57:35 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 14 Mar 2012 22:57:35 +0000 Date: 14 Mar 2012 22:57:35 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: "Bader, Reinhold" Cc: WG5 , "Rolf Rabenseifner (rabenseifner@hlrs.de)" Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4646) AW: Vote on N1904 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120314215009.D830F9DB112@www.open-std.org> References: <20120312152923.857DB9DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314164259.A5DD4356A46@www.open-std.org> <20120314215009.D830F9DB112@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 14 2012, Bader, Reinhold wrote: > >Rolf may be able to shed more light on this, so am putting him on CC here. >In any case, it is not the purpose of MPI-3 to enable communication of >data of types described below, so while I'm not convinced that loosening >of the planned INTENT(OUT) prohibition is necessary, the below would >certainly not impact MPI-3. No, that wasn't my point. It was that MPI receive buffers are a well-known example of where output-only assumed-type arguments are needed. While there is no difficulty in using INTENT(INOUT) or no INTENT, having to specify something other than what you intend is poor software engineering. There is no reasonable sense in which assumed-type is incompatible with INTENT(OUT) as such. The only incompatibility is with some of the semantic requirements that have been attached to INTENT(OUT) for some types. Regards, Nick Maclaren.