Tue Jan 26 15:06:00 EST 2016
On Jan 26, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Van Snyder <Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 19:36 +0000, Bill Long wrote:
>> Paper 16-126 on mixing defined I/O and asynchronous I/O seems to have
>> missed this restriction: "Neither a parent nor child data transfer
>> statement shall be asynchronous.?
> Good catch. One less interp to worry about.
> But why did we do that? There's no harm in it?
It is probably too big of a hammer. For example, defined I/O for a file opened for read only, and asynchronous, is not too hard to handle. Of course, you can always do the I/O directly, not using defined I/O procedures, and it works fine. But I imagine that OOP programmers would prefer type-bound defined I/O.
>> Bill Long longb at cray.com
>> Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
>> Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
>> Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101
More information about the J3