(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5373) [ukfortran] Question on PURE subroutines

[Malcolm Cohen]

[of a pure subroutine]
>Yet it appears to implement a side effect in a PURE procedure. Was this 
>intended?

I should point out that if a pure subroutine cannot have a side effect, it can 
be replaced by a NOP (since it has no return value).

Bill writes:
<<<
The issue that Reinhold points out is the case of a pointer appearing in a 
variable definition context when its target is not a local variable, but one 
that is declared in the specification part of a module.  We prohibit direct 
definition of such a variable in a pure procedure
>>>

No we do not.  We do NOT prohibit direct definition of a variable that is "not a 
local variable" in a pure subroutine, precisely when it is not INTENT(IN). 
Which happens to be this case.

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