(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3683) [ukfortran] N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Thu Nov 13 22:06:27 EST 2008

Robert Corbett continues to complain about PROTECTED.

Well, excuse me if we thought users would prefer to be able to pass 
PROTECTED variables to INTENT(IN) dummy arguments.  It's not 
unreasonable to provide something less safe instead of providing 
something that's perfectly safe but in practice is nearly useless.

As I said (and you admitted), the situation is no worse than 
INTENT(IN).  It's not at all like C const as you must know.  It's 20 
years too late to be quibbling about INTENT(IN), but if you want to 
argue about that, well in my opinion it wasn't possible to design 
something that gave perfect safety that couldn't be subverted at the 
same time as fulfilling the other design goals of INTENT(IN).

In any case, the user has to deliberately hide stuff from the compiler 
to get it to do "bad things" to a PROTECTED variable.  It's not like 
this is hard to detect if he wants to detect it.

Bah humbug and merry christmas season.

....................Malcolm Cohen,  Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

More information about the J3 mailing list