(j3.2006) Still illegal in F08?

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Thu Jan 7 05:21:50 EST 2010

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.

................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

More information about the J3 mailing list