 |
 |
Aleksandar Donev wrote: > > Hi, > > Although what Walt says is true > > Yes, of course, this was not the real program, just a quick and sloppy > example... > > > No, I don't think passing a rank 2 actual argument to a rank 1 dummy > > argument is "one of the main purposes of assumed-size arrays". One of the > main > > misuses of them, perhaps (if the interface is implicit). > > Well, say you are writing a routine that emulates RANDOM_NUMBER and you have > a serial generator. For contiguous arrays, the best thing you can do is use > an assumed-size array and just loop through its contents (stride 1 of > course) populating it with random numbers. Yes, of course, you could declare > its rank correctly and use nested DO loops to do the traversal but this is > clumsy and less efficient (the full program I am writing will be posted > soon!). > > But anyway, assumed size arrays should really be used for efficiency, not > for ease-of-use, so I should just forget about my generic interface > (sigh...). So although I am aware of misuses and usually do not use > assumed-size arrays, this is not the case here... This might be a job for TRANSFER. Can't say as I employ it very often, if ever, but you might be able to write a specific under your generic name which takes a rank 2 array and passes it through transfer on the way to calling the rank 1 version. Oh, nope -- the argument would have to be intent(in), and yours is clearly intent(out). Well, maybe someone else has an idea along this line. As I said, transfer is not among my commonly used tools. Oh yea, I think I keep seeing arguments about whether it's likely to make a copy (loosing efficiency), too. Maybe I should stick to talking about things I know. Bill -- William F. Mitchell Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division National Institute of Standards and Technology [log in to unmask] http://math.nist.gov/~mitchell