On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Malcolm Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is a bit similar to a proposal made by the UK group for controlling what "default" kinds should be during Fortran 2015 development. ..
>
> The reason for handling type declarations as well as literals was to handle situations that are currently dealt with (somewhat awkwardly, and non-standardly) by compiler options like "-r8".
>
> I think this is an important issue and is worth looking at again in the future.
>
> ..
It's highly encouraging to read the above words, hopefully this will
get discussed in depth during the development of Fortran 202X.
The use cases I have in mind are borne out of needs with generic
programming for various compute libraries and I feel there is a need
for more fine-grained control of the kinds of literal constants at the
level of a scoping unit. My files - modules and submodules - span
many a scoping unit, so if a standard facility is introduced that
works similar to "-r8", "-i8", etc. compiler options for default kinds
of intrinsic types with a wider scope (e.g., entire file unit as is
the case with compilers today), then it will likely not cover my use
cases.
Hence when the time is "right" - year 2018, 2020, 2025, 2030, whenever
- for the committee to consider such an aspect, is there a way for the
committee to be reminded about this thread with the LITERAL_KINDS
statement and if there is interest, I can provide further details to
the level of a proposal? If there is a place where I can post a
request for inclusion, say, on a list of items to be considered, it
will be very helpful for me to know.
Thanks,
Vipul
|