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
 
Richard Maine  
View profile  
 More options Apr 9 2007, 7:25 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
From: nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:25:58 -0700
Local: Mon, Apr 9 2007 7:25 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

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Richard Maine wrote:
> (snip)

> > "All these years" isn't very many for allocatable components, which are
> > where I can most readily see a related problem. Wouldn't surprise me if
> > there are others, but that's one I think I can see concretely. There's
> > no way that whoever wrote the transfer description for f90 could have
> > carefully considered how it worked with allocatable components, the
> > details of which weren't done til a decade later.

> Some of the subtleties should be similar to those for pointers.
> Not all, I agree, but if the effect can be seen for pointer
> components it shouldn't be attributed to allocatable components.

The ones that kept allocatable components from getting into f95, that
required corrections in the TR, and that have made it take a long time
for vendors to actually get allocatable components working are not in
common with pointers. That is to say, pretty much all the points that
I'd count as particularly subtle. I've been using pointer components
reliably for a decade and a half now. I don't have any production code
at all that uses allocatable components because last time I checked,
many of the compilers still had bugs in that area.

--
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain


 
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