(j3.2006) J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #13 - due 17-Aug-2007 ** due 6-Aug-2007 if possible **

Jim Xia jimxia
Thu Jul 26 16:41:50 EDT 2007

Michael Ingrassia <michaeli at ranma.sfbay.sun.com> 
Sent by: j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org
07/26/2007 04:15 PM
Please respond to
fortran standards email list for J3 <j3 at j3-fortran.org>

j3 at j3-fortran.org

Re: (j3.2006) J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #13 - due 17-Aug-2007     ** 
due 6-Aug-2007 if possible **

Jim Xia says about F03/0090:
>before rushing to the proposed edit.

This is the first time I can recall hearing the Fortran Interp process
characterized as "rushing". 8)

In any case I had intended to vote Yes on F03/0090.
The fact that one can figure out what a "polymorphic array constructor"
might signify is not in itself a valid argument that the 
functionality should be added retroactively to Fortran 2003! 

Especially so since the need for caution in checking this new
functionality against the rest of the standard would delay the interp.

Timely interps are desperately needed as the Fortran 2003 has already
been published.

                 --Michael I.

J3 mailing list
J3 at j3-fortran.org

Hi Michael,

This paper was presented and passed near the end of J3 meeting #180.  I 
must be sleeping at the meeting since I found out these problems as soon 
as I got back to IBM (I felt very bad about this).  Treating array 
constructor always as a non-polymorphic is like closing door to the other 
possibilities where users may find very useful.  Note in the example 
given, you can achieve the nonpolymorphic array constructor by this [T:: 
(dummy, i = 1, n)].  It seems to me keep the polymorphism is the right 


Jim Xia

XL Fortran Compiler Testing
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave.
Phone (905) 413-3444  Tie-line 969-3444
D2/NAH/8200 /MKM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20070726/30cfa610/attachment.html 

More information about the J3 mailing list