(j3.2006) Unformatted i/o of private components (was Re: Lock variables)
Mon Mar 9 22:12:00 EDT 2009
Van Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 17:30 -0700, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> Again, Fortran 90/95 disallow all (intrinsic) i/o (including
>> unformatted) of types with private components, and I cannot believe
>> such a stupid feature was a deliberate part of F2003. Evidence
>> please, on a postcard.
> See 01-173r1, which applied edits to 01-007.
> The paragraph
> "Unless a list item is processed by a user-defined derived-type
> input/output procedure (188.8.131.52.3), a derived-type object shall not
> appear as an input/output list item if any component ultimately in the
> object is not accessible within the scoping unit containing the
> input/output statement."
> was replaced by that paper with essentially the present wording, which
> has been moved around and bulletized between then and now, but not
> changed since 01-007r1 in a substantive way.
> The introductory paragraph appears to say it was intentional.
No it does not.
The paper is called "Derived Type I/O Fixups".
It does NOT claim to be inserting the NEW FEATURE of being able to do
unformatted intrinsic i/o on derived type variables with private parts.
Far from being evidence that this was a DELIBERATE addition of a (IMNSHO
stupid) new feature, it is evidence to the contrary.
There are NO passed specs or syntax for this claimed new feature.
> "The description of how to expand list items into effective list items,
> or just expand a list item as if the user had specified ...., is broken
> and/or incompletely specified, and/or specifies undesirable
Right, *behaviour*, not "we forgot to add a new feature".
This new feature is not listed in c01, has no approved specs or syntax I
can find, was not requested by WG5, is contrary to the design of PRIVATE
(as evinced in many places), and is incompatible with the restriction
being applied to *formatted* i/o. And now we see the paper that added
it *MADE NO MENTION* of any new feature being added.
I'd say I have a cast iron case here.
> It seems we need an interp
Absolutely, that's what I implied when I said that the standard is broken.
.......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo, Japan.
More information about the J3