Nils Smeds writes:
> Firstly: Does anyone know what lies behind the standard explicitly stating that
> a dummy argument must not have the ALLOCATABLE attribute?
A often-discussed question. The answer is much simpler than you would
think. I know of no subtle reasons why allocatables shouldn't be
allowed as dummy arguments. It just took the committee too much time
to get straight all the details of how some forms of allocatables
would work. The work wasn't done in time for f95. (I'm not sure that
dummy arguments were the biggest problem. In my opinion, some issues
relating to allocatable components were much trickier, but all the
allocatable improvements were lumped together and hard to separate
once it became evident that it wasn't going to be done in time for f95).
Allocatable dummy arguments (and other improvements in allocatable -
notably allocatable components) are in a TR that has been implemented
as an extension in at least one (I think two) f95 compilers. This
TR is integrated into the draft of the f2k standard.
--
Richard Maine
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|