From j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk Fri Mar 31 20:20:34 2000 Received: from mailhub1.liv.ac.uk (mailhub1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.94]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA31332 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:20:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from pcmail2.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.252.15]) by mailhub1.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12b61w-0000t0-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:20:24 +0000 Received: from [138.253.134.46] (helo=liv-dialup.liv) by pcmail2.liv.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12b5zW-0007bC-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:17:55 +0100 From: Lawrie Schonfelder Reply-To: j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk To: "Kurt W. Hirchert" Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1750) Interpretation 001 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000330095626.00803cd0@perseus.ccs.uky.edu> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:16:32 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sounds good to me! and I am sorry I misunderstood the precise meaning of your comment. It touched a raw nerve without activating think before you comment brain cells. On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:56:26 -0500 "Kurt W. Hirchert" wrote: > 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 -- Lawrie Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. The University of Liverpool, UK, L69 7ZF Phone: 44(151)794 3716, Fax: 44(151)794 3759