Richard Maine wrote: > Brooks Moses <bmoses-nos...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Richard Maine wrote: [...] >> Would it be allowable, at least, for a compiler to throw an error and >> refuse to compile "transfer(transfer(-5_8, L), -5_8)" at all?
> I think you could argue that. But then you might get users who > considered it a poor quality of implementation; that one is harder. I > have trouble imagining why anyone would ever want to do such a strange > thing, but James Buskirk can probably come up with something useful. :-)
I'd be one of those who thought is was poor quality of implementation!
I expect TRANSFER to very much be a replacement for EQUIVALENCE, similar to the remarks of Mike Metcalf in this thread. It is perfectly standard-conforming to equivalence integer, logical, real and complex entities. Now the standard says that assigning to one member of an equivalence list makes reference to any of the others be undefined, IIRC. But it doesn't say anything about zero-ing out "unused" bits in the logical member after assignment to the real or integer member, etc.
I most emphatically agree with other comments in this thread that conversions done by assignment should NOT be done by TRANSFER. That would sort of defeat it's whole raison d'etre, wouldn't it?
-Ken -- Ken & Ann Fairfield What: Ken dot And dot Ann Where: Gmail dot Com
