(j3.2006) WG23 Fortran Annex Draft

[Dan Nagle]

Hi,

<sigh>  I guess I brain-swapped C_F_POINTER and C_FUN_PTR.

I've simplified the wording to the point where
I hope I didn't foul anything.  :-)

On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Reinhold Bader wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Dan Nagle schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have put a new version of Fortran_Annex.txt in Tutorials
>> addressing Reinhold's comments.
>
> The wording is not quite right, though. C_F_POINTER does not take
> a function argument, but converts a C_PTR object to a pointer entity;
> in a sense it is the inverse of C_LOC.
>
> There are analogous procedures C_FUNLOC and C_F_PROCPOINTER
> for handling interoperable functions. It might be more appropriate to
> treat these in 3.41.
>
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Reinhold Bader wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Dan,
>>>
>>>  In section 3.12 Bit Representations [STR] you mention TRANSFER and
>>> equivalence,
>>>  making a recommendation against using TRANSFER.
>>>
>>>  However, the C_LOC / C_F_POINTER combination as well as unlimited
>>> polymorphic
>>>  entities having targets of non-extensible derived type appear to
>>> me to have the same
>>>  potential problems as TRANSFER. Their use should therefore also be
>>> recommended against
>>>  (unless type inconsistencies are detectable).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Reinhold
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> J3 mailing list
>>> J3 at j3-fortran.org
>>> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

-- 
Cheers!

Dan Nagle