Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.fortran
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Transfer and variables that don't use all their storage space.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
James Giles  
View profile  
 More options Apr 9 2007, 12:10 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
From: "James Giles" <jamesgi...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:10:40 GMT
Local: Mon, Apr 9 2007 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Transfer and variables that don't use all their storage space.
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Richard Maine wrote:
> We appear to be miscommunicating. I agree that transfer is to provide
> a means of doing such things. That is not my point. Have you reread
> the sentence from the standard that Brooks cited? That sentence
> specifically says what some cases give as a result, and it says it in
> a fashion that is not system dependent. You don't need that sentence
> to provide system-dependent capability; quite the opposite - that
> sentence disallows system dependence.

Well, I've thought it over again and I can't see any difference
between passing transfer(transfer(E,D),E)) as an actual argument
and just passing E as the actual argument except the following:
the result of TRANSFER may not be argument associated
with a dummy argument that has OUT among its INTENTs.
I don't see how that difference could cause "havoc".  So, at
least as far as the issue of ALLOCATABLE components,
I still see no problems.

I suppose you can continue to speculate that there *might* be
problems with requiring the double transfer above to be the
identity operation.  But it will remain just that: speculation.
Without a concrete example of such a problem it seems to
me that there are better things to do with one's time.  For
all we know, someone in the F90 committee carefully thought
through all possible cases and found no "havoc" arising from
any of them.  That's speculation too (unless someone remembers
it).  It seems as likely as that there *is* a problem with the
requirement that no one can identify after all these years.

--
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google