(j3.2006) Still illegal in F08?

[Malcolm Cohen]

Van Snyder wrote:
> I take your point of not using optional arguments willy-nilly.  Would it
> really reduce checkability by a measurable amount to allow an optional
> dummy argument to be an actual argument associated with a dummy argument
> of a specification function, provided a requirement is added that the
> corresponding dummy argument of the specification function has to be
> optional?

That strikes me as reasonable actually.

> The "two calls" case is the degenerate case.  I have four such
> arguments.  That means I need 16 cases, to handle the 16 possible
> combinations of present and not present.  I've just gotten a requirement
> for two more derivatives.  That makes 64 cases now.

I thought this sort of thing was why we've added passing null pointers to 
optional nonallocatable nonpointer dummies being treated as nonpresent instead 
of an error.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.