[J3] Clarification on F18/017

[Bill Long]

> On Jun 8, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Carlson, Neil via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Steve Lionel via J3 wrote:
> > So... What is the technical reason for disallowing CBPA and how would
> > you change the interp to satisfy the other requirements? 
> 
> I think the better question is:  Does the order CBPA makes good language design sense? Does it make good sense for A to be finalized after P when its sibling component B is finalized before merely because one is allocatable and one is not?  I find that very surprising and non-intuitive.  Is there a rationale for that other than appealing to minimal disruption for some compilers? (Which I don't find to be a very compelling reason.)
> 
> There is no question here of breaking valid code by working toward an alternative solution that disallows CBPA.  The standard was conflicting and there could not have been any such thing as "valid code" in this circumstance; NAG produced CBPA, Intel CABP.

Interesting. In the area of standard-conformance, the NAG compiler is usually the Gold Standard. 

Cheers,
Bill

> 
> -Neil
> 
> ---
> Neil Carlson, PhD  ·  505.665.6386
> ASC Telluride Project Lead
> Computational Physics and Methods (CCS-2)
> Los Alamos National Laboratory

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
Cray, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company/ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425