"John" <gh14...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...No, it is not standard conforming. Using the name of a derived type before
> Is the below code standard conforming? I have one group saying it is and
> another saying it isn't. Both are very knowledgeable about Fortran. One
> compiler compiles with no errors, but another flags an error. Of course, you
> can always move the "real :: z(t%n)" below the "type (tt) :: t" to avoid any
> problem, but I am concerned about the order shown.
it is defined explicitly violates the rules in section 126.96.36.199 of Fortran 2003.
Here is the relevant text:
Where a data entity id declared explicitly using the TYPE specifier, the derived
There is an exception later in the paragraph for function results.
> module test_module--
> implicit none
> type tt
> real :: z(t%n)
> end subroutine test_sub_1
17130 W. Burleigh Place
P. O. Box 423
Brookfield, WI 53008-0423
Voice: (262) 783-5869
Fax: (262) 783-5928
Mobile: (414) 412-5869
E-mail: <cd...@wi.rr.com> or <cr...@ctdedo.com>
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.