Is it permissable for a conforming F90 implementation to
define nonstandard intrinsics in such a way that their
names become reserved names not specified in the standard?
I know of one compiler that defines a nonstandard intrinsic LOC,
and wants to interpret the following code as _extending_ its
generic interface. However because LOC1 is not distinguished
from the existing nonstandard LOC, the compiler reports an error.
This can't be correct can it? This is valid F90 code.
module generic_interface
public :: loc
private :: loc1
interface loc
module procedure loc1
end interface
contains
function loc1 (x) result (value)
real, intent(in) :: x
real :: value
value = x
end function loc1
end module generic_interface
Thanks,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil N. Carlson [log in to unmask]
Department of Mathematics 765-494-1920 (Fax: 4-0548)
Purdue University
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|