(j3.2006) Would there be a technical problem if...

[Clune, Thomas L. GSFC-6101]

Not sure this is the best example.    Inner products usually reduce dimensionality, and the LHS should either be a different size _or_ of a different type (internal rank of the data type?).   As a reader of the code, the ambiguity would rile me up.




On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute.org<mailto:damian at sourceryinstitute.org>> wrote:

Such a feature would be especially nice for use with type-bound operators:

type(vector_field) : u(3), v(3), w(3)
u = v .dot. w


Damian

On January 16, 2018 at 7:25:51 PM, Van Snyder (van.snyder at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:van.snyder at jpl.nasa.gov>) wrote:

We require the passed-object dummy argument to be scalar.

Would there be a technical problem if it were allowed to be an array, at
least in the case it has INTENT(IN)?

I tried to create a generic "dump" binding that would dump a scalar,
using a type-bound routine with a scalar passed-object dummp argument,
and another one with a rank-one passed-object dump argument. The array
dump just iterated over the elements and called the scalar one.


_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20180117/b1cd2d8e/attachment-0002.html>