(j3.2006) Question about lbound of an assumed-rank entity

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 10:10 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:

> SUMMARY:
> (1) The TS does not require LBOUND of assumed-rank to give the LBOUND
> of a 
> nonallocatable nonpointer actual, because you cannot introduce a new 
> technical effect by burying it in the edits section,
> (2) Requiring LBOUND of assumed-rank to give the LBOUND of a
> nonallocatable 
> nonpointer actual, as the 007 does now, would either create a lot of
> extra 
> work for the processor (it cannot use lower_bound in the C descriptor
> for 
> the lower bounds, but has to pass them around separately) or produce 
> inconsistent results,
> (3) Those problems go away if nonallocatable nonpointer assumed-rank
> acts 
> like assumed-shape (LBOUND==1), and this is easy to implement.


I prefer to make this kind of change now, rather than to battle over it
for several years using interps and corrigenda.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20170227/94c82111/attachment.html