JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  March 2018

COMP-FORTRAN-90 March 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Question on overloading defined assignment with a type-bound procedure

From:

Bill Long <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:36:18 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

To fill in the missing information Malcolm mentioned, for all three compilers tested, I compiled with no extra options - only what they use as default.  That does result in some differences - one of the compilers defaults to a pretty high level of optimization and strictness while a different one defaults to -O0.   But all three uniformly compiled the code with no messages and the resulting executions produced identical output.  

The disambiguation problem could be avoided if the specific added by the separate generic interface had a second argument of  type integer, rather than type(t).

However, suppose the programmer, in a separate module that has a USE M extends type(t)  by adding a second type-bound specific with an integer second argument to the operator(=) generic specified in the type.   If the external generic in M is accessed as part of the generic resolution, then there would be a conflict with the newly added specific in the new module, forcing the user too look through all of the ancestor modules to be sure there was no duplicate specific already available.  On the other hand, if the resolution of the generic in the type is limited to type-bound procedures, then the new one can be added without worrying about conflicts in other files.  The second option (which appears to be widely implemented) seems more in keeping with the OOP idea of encapsulating information in the type and its extensions.  The first preserves the old scheme where generics with the same generic name continue to accrete specifics as they are added, no matter where the new generic statement / interface block appears as long as it is accessible.  It seems worthwhile to have a discussion about what sort of environment we want to ensure for OOP programmers.     And clearly state the intent in the standard. 

Cheers,
Bill


> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:11 PM, Malcolm Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> That's a good question.
> 
> I do not think this was intended to conform.
> 
> Certainly the two generic specifications do not satisfy the rules in (F2008) "12.4.3.4.5 Restrictions on generic declarations", which apply to
> " every pair of specific procedures that have the same generic identifier within the scope of the identifier"
> 
> Obviously module m scope includes the ASSIGNMENT(=) specific procedure specified by the INTERFACE.
> 
> So you ask what is the scope of the type-bound generic, and the answer is:
>  " A generic binding for which the generic-spec is not a generic-name has a scope that consists of all scoping units
> in which an entity of the type is accessible."
> 
> I think this wording is not what we meant, because it leads to the surprising results that
> a) a scoping unit that uses the module and has an entity of the type is not conforming;
> b) adding "TYPE(T) X" to the module would make it non-conforming.
> 
> That would be a bit strange.
> 
> So I think what we meant was "the type or an entity of the type is accessible".  As the designer of the feature, it is what I implemented...
> 
> ...so I think the committees need to examine this possible defect in the language standard and see what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> I note that Bill's longer example is unambiguously NOT conforming, as the scoping unit for program m has an entity of the type, and the interface-block-specified generic is also in the scope (made accessible by use association), so violates the generic ambiguity rules.  The compilers he tested were also NOT conforming (at least with the options he used) as diagnosis of scoping rule violations is required, and this includes the generic ambiguity rules by reference.
> 
> The idea that type-bound generics override interface blocks is an interesting idea, but not one that has any support in the standard.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Vipul Parekh
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [COMP-FORTRAN-90] Question on overloading defined assignment with a type-bound procedure
> 
> Does the following code conform to the standard considering the assignment interface as well as a type-bound generic?
> 
> module m
>   type :: t
>   contains
>      procedure :: assign_class_t
>      generic :: assignment(=) => assign_class_t
>   end type
>   interface assignment(=)
>      module procedure assign_t
>   end interface
> contains
>   subroutine assign_t( this, rhs )
>      type(t), intent(out), allocatable :: this
>      type(t), intent(in)  :: rhs
>   end subroutine
>   subroutine assign_class_t( this, rhs )
>      class(t), intent(inout) :: this
>      type(t), intent(in)     :: rhs
>   end subroutine
> end module m
> 
> Two processors I tried compiled the code with no errors.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vipul Parekh

Bill Long                                                                       [log in to unmask]
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager