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