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

Cohen Malcolm malcolm
Wed Mar 1 04:08:11 EST 2017

>terms like ?assumed-bounds? or ?assumed-shape? when talking about 
>assumed-rank just confuse the issue.

No they do not.  The current text says

   "If the rank is nonzero, the lower and upper bounds of the dummy argument 
are those that would be given by the intrinsic functions LBOUND and UBOUND 
respectively if applied to the actual argument,"

... which in fewer words, means "the dummy assumes the bounds of the 
actual", i.e. it is the very definition of "assumed-bounds".

...whereas the TS (in the non-edits section) said the dummy "assumes the 
extents"; since the extents form the shape, this is the very definition of 
assumed-shape.  (plus there is the exception for assumed-size, but that's an 
exception whether you talk about "assumed extents" or "assumed-shape".

I make no apology for using obvious terminology in place of unwieldy 

No one has suggested changing what is passed in the lower_bound members.

I am pleased that you do not disagree with what was actually suggested, 
which is to make the lower bounds in Fortran equal to 1.

.............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. 

More information about the J3 mailing list