From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Mar 15 00:26:04 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 5D21A9DB118; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:26:04 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76BC89DB112 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:26:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2EpCWIW6a41fSIkdouGf9zLWxL2kXGF@postini.com; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:26:03 PDT Received: from fortran.us.cray.com (172.31.19.200) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4F612910.4000407@cray.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:26:08 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4647) [ukfortran] AW: Vote on N1904 References: <20120312152923.857DB9DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314164259.A5DD4356A46@www.open-std.org> <20120314215009.D830F9DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314225736.EE474356A42@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20120314225736.EE474356A42@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 3/14/12 5:57 PM, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > 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. > I appreciate the principle. However, one might argue that declaring a variable TYPE(*) already has you pretty far down the "poor software engineering" road. > 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. > True. I assume your proposed exceptions were intended to added to 6.3p2. The risk I see is that we miss something, or spend undue time haggling over the wording. The risk/reward balance is the concern. In contrast, Reinhold's proposed edit (add INTENT(OUT) to the list in C4071) is very simple -> low risk. I agree it is overkill, but for such a narrowly focused feature as TYPE(*), I think that is an acceptable trade-off. Cheers, Bill > > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. > > _______________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@j3-fortran.org > http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101