(j3.2006) "Contiguous" doesn't quite do what I need

Bill Long longb
Fri Mar 23 14:35:42 EDT 2007

Van Snyder wrote:

>The notation I propose is just as simple as the contiguous attribute,
>and entirely subsumes it.  Instead of "real, contiguous :: A(:,:,:)" one
>writes "real :: A(::1,::1,::1)".  

This might be simple in that few characters are used.  But, compared to 
the contiguous attribute, it is also cryptic, opaque, and techno-nerdy.  
I don't see it as a reasonable alternative.

>Since the notation I propose entirely
>subsumes the contiguous attribute, adding it later will look like a
>replacement for an earlier poorly thought-through feature, preserving
>what was described in the lead-up to Fortran 90 as "the beloved Fortran
>tacked-on look."

Adding the mixed declaration arrays to f08 at this point is unreasonable 
on grounds that it is quite disruptive, and, besides, was already voted 
down.  It seems you  are proposing that we delete contiguous because in 
the future there might be something better, leaving the f08 users with 
nothing.  I don't see that as acceptable.  The contiguous attribute is 
one of the most popular additions in f08.  We're being pressed to 
implement it now. 

>The "contiguous" attribute does nothing for the case of arrays known to
>have extents in some (probably leading) dimensions given by
>initialization expressions. 

Clearly.  You are asking for a different feature.  Our task at this 
point, I think, is supposed to be getting the features that were 
approved correctly incorporated into the standard.


Bill Long                                   longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &              voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development         fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3.scs.gmu.edu/pipermail/j3/attachments/20070323/5632ac0c/attachment.html 

More information about the J3 mailing list