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