From hirchert@ccs.uky.edu Thu Mar 30 16:57:50 2000 Received: from mailhost.ccs.uky.edu (mailhost.ccs.uky.edu [128.163.209.59]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA26712 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:57:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hirchert@ccs.uky.edu) Received: from hirchert (hirchert.ccs.uky.edu [128.163.209.36]) by mailhost.ccs.uky.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA02214; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:56:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000330095626.00803cd0@perseus.ccs.uky.edu> X-Sender: hirchert@perseus.ccs.uky.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:56:26 -0500 To: j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk From: "Kurt W. Hirchert" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1750) Interpretation 001 Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk In-Reply-To: <200003300938.LAA25396@dkuug.dk> References: <200003291559.RAA22410@dkuug.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:36 AM 3/30/00 +0100, Lawrie Schonfelder wrote: > >On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:59:03 -0500 "Kurt W. Hirchert" >wrote: > > >> Given the disagreements, I might be persuaded that the standard is >> ambiguous or incomplete on this point and that it should be "corrected" to >> match Lawrie's rules. [If we are going to do that, I would also like to >> revisit the interpretation on the use of intrinsics in specification and >> initialization expressions.] > >I would agree wholeheartedly with looking again at specification and >initialization expressions. I would like to go further and revisit the need >for the draconian overly complex restrictions in this area. I constantly fall >over these restrictions when actually trying to program portable programs in >F95. I repeatedly reread this section of the standard and am still confused >as to precisely what it means and just try explaining it to novices or >programmers with a different native language from Fortran! I apologize for being unclear. I wasn't talking about revisiting the question of which intrinsics can be used in specification and initialization expressions; as Malcolm points out, this has already been revisited for F2K, and it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. What I was suggesting was revisiting the interpretation I mentioned earlier in this discussion, i.e. the one that says that intrinsics used in these expressions are part of the list of entities exported by a module in which public is the default. I consider this to be a very similar trap for the unwary and would prefer to fix both if we are going to fix either. (One possible approach would be to say that the default public attribute applies only to entities that are explicitly declared or made accessible by an explicit USE statement. This would fix both problems and make the public default less of a trap for the unwary.) -- Kurt W. Hirchert hirchert@ccs.uky.edu Center for Computational Sciences +606-257-8748