From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Sep 18 10:50:03 2024 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 98C3F357038; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:50:03 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 487 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:50:03 CEST Received: from smtp-out-2.talktalk.net (smtp-out-2.talktalk.net [62.24.135.66]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4907D356F3A for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:50:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.197.1.247] ([2.100.204.175]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id qqG2sEy1MvjStqqG2s3dAf; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:41:54 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=talktalk.net; s=cmr1711; t=1726648914; bh=KmBVisZwBizjRSULSVGsRGlV/JrNWZ7zYubpjG8ZLA4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Q/UAB8YLmM5LplTXfGnbt7vqUbSC43syRc0H8UtGFza+KhnW0kS3At7LawLeTgoyK qPsjdUjS4COXK3dAJRtPMhcf6avrtsfJyeViHzRFRpwI32sWVNREpHv7fPnXa3ewD3 +9MIAPyDf1e0I92u2U9S3mufyEn+sycMjXXCPtLw= X-Originating-IP: [2.100.204.175] X-Spam: 0 X-OAuthority: v=2.3 cv=eLBtc0h1 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=+/t99oqttpv9cEP1OHanYg==:117 a=+/t99oqttpv9cEP1OHanYg==:17 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=Hx9PlwantLrzTkxAA2AA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=UqCG9HQmAAAA:8 a=_ROoWiHXCZnawuxITIwA:9 a=jBqxQTjWAyjFwtEB:21 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 Subject: Re: [J3] [SC22WG5.6604] intent(in) and value To: WG5 Cc: Jeff Hammond References: From: John Reid Message-ID: <790a0022-0776-e9ac-7715-bcd42b5e4f9f@talktalk.net> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:41:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------79224159BBD06B528077719F" X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfM/ASXNy31w+PIZFX+IsD8iocU+79WGav9Vmkq+XDrLJ487pacVsPbPrwuSoqlpdocR8bC3F/XTMvYDpq4SXk6J8iFp91Vj7a/6Wg+uW6wmHqdlr5miG wl3GOgm17qPy4KGPnDsWEA0vnuSy9Isl3dTAkHLugihs8OiFYjoLDqWeZnfS61qpCDXa1ga1X80cgzYCl6nIjiQh6Bsj8+LG1loWTt5viJ36JAXolpSncQ10 d6mrDyZMDCARRHtVd6Bvnw== Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------79224159BBD06B528077719F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jeff, Dummy arguments without an INTENT are just that. It is what we had in Fortran 77. They are not required to be definable, as is the case for INTENT(INOUT) (see 8.5.10, para 4). Cheers, John. Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote: > > 8.5.10 R828 says that INTENT is IN, OUT or INOUT. > > 8.5.19 C868 says that VALUE cannot be INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) > > Should I understand that dummy arguments without an INTENT do not have > an implicit intent corresponding to any of the explicit INTENT types?  > I have always assumed that the default INTENT was INOUT, but that > cannot be true since that would conflict with VALUE in the example > below.  It seems the default INTENT is “INOUT, unless VALUE, in which > case it’s IN-but-also-assignable”. > > subroutine foo(a,b) > >     implicit none > >     integer, value, intent(in) :: a > >     integer, value :: b > >     ! integer, value, intent(inout) :: c ! not allowed > >     ! integer, value, intent(out) :: d ! not allowed > >     ! a = 21 ! can't assign because intent(in) > >     b = 23 ! can assign > > end subroutine foo > > Thanks > > Jeff > --------------79224159BBD06B528077719F Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Jeff,

Dummy arguments without an INTENT are just that. It is what we had in Fortran 77. They are not required to be definable, as is the case for INTENT(INOUT) (see 8.5.10, para 4).

Cheers,

John.


Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote:

8.5.10 R828 says that INTENT is IN, OUT or INOUT.

 

8.5.19 C868 says that VALUE cannot be INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT)

 

Should I understand that dummy arguments without an INTENT do not have an implicit intent corresponding to any of the explicit INTENT types?  I have always assumed that the default INTENT was INOUT, but that cannot be true since that would conflict with VALUE in the example below.  It seems the default INTENT is “INOUT, unless VALUE, in which case it’s IN-but-also-assignable”.

 

subroutine foo(a,b)

    implicit none

    integer, value, intent(in) :: a

    integer, value :: b

    ! integer, value, intent(inout) :: c ! not allowed

    ! integer, value, intent(out) :: d ! not allowed

    ! a = 21 ! can't assign because intent(in)

    b = 23 ! can assign

end subroutine foo

 

Thanks

 

Jeff


--------------79224159BBD06B528077719F--