(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4639) [ukfortran] Issue with C1255 in Interop TS

N.M. Maclaren nmm1
Wed Mar 14 06:38:01 EDT 2012

On Mar 13 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> There might be a problem if we think of assumed-rank variables as being 
> scalar. Which as it stands I guess we do think of them as being 
> "conditionally" scalar. Ugh.
> So can we have an elemental procedure with an assumed-rank argument? Oh 
> dear.
>Maybe we should just change the definition of "scalar" to exclude 

That makes sense to me.

>> Certainly the assumed-rank and assumed-shape cases come under the "new 
>> sense" of interoperable. Assumed-type is different, but I think still 
>> not anticipated by the current text.
>It is covered in precisely the same way that CLASS(*) is.  No-one has been 
>confused about that, so I see no reason for confusion now.

I am :-(

My problem is getting my head around what is implied by passing one of
them (or, worse, a derived type containing one of them with the POINTER
attribute) to an assumed-type dummy.  I don't think that it's a big deal,
because any non-trivial use of assumed-type is outside the standard, but
I get very confused thinking about it.

Nick Maclaren.

More information about the J3 mailing list