From J.L.Schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk Wed Feb 23 10:22:41 1994 Received: from mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk (mail.liv.ac.uk) by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA09372 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:27:17 +0100 Received: from liverpool.ac.uk by mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <13427-0@mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk>; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:22:42 +0000 From: "Dr.J.L.Schonfelder" Message-Id: <9402231022.AA22628@uxe.liv.ac.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.503) Re: (x3j3.1994-89) 006 items To: jls@juniper.cray.com, SC22WG5@dkuug.dk (SC22/WG5 members) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:22:41 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <9402230635.AA10332@juniper.cray.com> from "jls@juniper.cray.com" at Feb 23, 94 00:35:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 880 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Jon, it is ubundantly clear to me that in the dash to complete F90 too mant things got done at the last minute which were not properly coordinated. I believe this TARGET argument semantics is one of them. One group may have been working with the intent of allowing copyin/copyout semantics but I contend that another was not. We therefore have a standard that is internally inconsistent. I continue to believe that copy semantics are wrong for target arguments and sophistry which codifies undefined behavour in the standard to the detriment of its utility to the user is undesirable in the extreme. We made a mistake! Lets fix it not compound it by simply clarifying the text so that the mistake is more obvious. -- Dr.J.L.Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. University of Liverpool, UK Phone: +44(51)794 3716 FAX : +44(51)794 3759 email: jls@liv.ac.uk