(j3.2006) FINAL subroutines with explicit/assumed-size arrays
Wed May 9 01:01:04 EDT 2012
>Tobias Burnus wrote:
>I do have problems with an assumed-size or explicit-size dummy argument of a
Just like other generics, a dummy argument is permitted to be assumed-size or
It is true that I would not advise doing that, but then I would not advise using
those kinds of arrays in other generics either.
Requiring final procedures in particular to have only scalar or assumed-shape
arrays would have been an inconsistency with other generics. Admittedly the
inconsistency is only minor, but when it comes down to making inconsistent
rules, one needs to have a very good reason for the inconsistency; doing
otherwise increases the complexity of the language. No sufficiently good reason
presented itself at the time.
>However, that only makes sense, if all arrays of a type have the same size (per
>given rank) , or one passes the array size in a very indirect way (e.g. module
>variable) - or if one ignores the data completely or partially (e.g. using
>always only the first array element).
Well there you are - you admitted it could make sense in some contexts. So we
would need a Very good reason to make it inconsistent.
It is also true that a program might have a particular convention for using
variables of the type so that an array would have a built-in sentinel for
example. That seems strange if you are thinking of FINAL in terms of a library
you are providing to the user, but not quite so strange for a program itself,
even if I would not recommend that style.
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3