(j3.2006) Unformatted i/o of private components (was Re: Lock variables)

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
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
> [01-007:21-23]
>    "Unless a list item is processed by a user-defined derived-type
> input/output procedure (, 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
> behavior,...."
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 mailing list