https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?RSS&L=COMP-FORTRAN-90&v=1.0COMP-FORTRAN-90 List
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMP-FORTRAN-90
COMP-FORTRAN-90 List Archives2016-04-27T20:57:38ZPowered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list manager
http://www.lsoft.com/products/listserv-powered.asp
http://www.lsoft.com/images/listserv_small.gifFwd: (CALL FOR PAPERS) PAW16: PGAS Applications Workshop
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;dacf5a48.1604
Hi,<br><br>I’m forwarding this for Damian Rouson and Karla Morris.<br><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br>On Apr 26, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Morris, Karla NMN <knmorri@sandia.gov <mailto:knmorri@sandia.gov>> wrote:<br><br>CALL FOR PAPERS<br><br>PAW16: PGAS Applications Workshop<br>http://sourceryinstitute.github.io/PAW/ <http://sourceryinstitute.github.io/PAW/><br><br>November 14, 2016 - Salt Lake City, Utah<br><br>Held in conjunction with SC16<br>http://sc16.supercomputing.org/ <http://sc16.supercomputing.org/><br>In cooperation with SIGHPC<br><br>SUMMARY<br><br>The race towards Exascale computing is on, and a lot of stress<br>is put on researchers to break the boundaries of productivity<br>and efficiency imposed by traditional programming models.<br>Partitioned Global Address Space (PGAS) languages are an<br>effective alternative, and the most promising path towards<br> [...]
2016-04-27T14:57:28-06:00Dan Naglehttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;dacf5a48.1604unsubscribe
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;a05a154.1604
Sabino Chavez-Cerda<br>INAOE
2016-04-26T18:48:40-05:00<>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;a05a154.1604Re: How to use BOZ-literal-constants in an integer array constructor?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;3693d85c.1604
On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 15:20 +0000, Bill Long wrote:<br>> Correct. There was a proposal for Fortran 2008 to include a “BITS”<br>> data type that would have enabled something like this. However, in an<br>> attempt to reduce the size of the changes to the standard, it was<br>> dropped. While there were no actual technical problems with the<br>> proposal, it was seen as too much effort for the benefit received.<br>> Weighing against it was the difficulty of implementing any change to<br>> the typing system. [...]
2016-04-25T13:20:51-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;3693d85c.1604Re: How to use BOZ-literal-constants in an integer array constructor?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;acbc8776.1604
Indeed, if I invoke standards checking, I see that as well. This does seem to be an unnecessary irregularity in the standard - allowing a scalar of something as an argument to an elemental function while prohibiting an array of the same things.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Bill<br><br>On Apr 25, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Vipul Parekh <parekhvs@GMAIL.COM> wrote: [...]
2016-04-25T18:31:18+00:00Bill Longhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;acbc8776.1604unsubscribe
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;3bb2909f.1604
J. Clark Powers<br>MS Technical Communication<br>NC State University<br>LinkedIn: J. Clark Powers <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jclarkpowers><br>@JClarkPowers <http://twitter.com/JClarkPowers>
2016-04-25T14:14:21-04:00Jason Powershttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;3bb2909f.1604Re: How to use BOZ-literal-constants in an integer array constructor?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;82da01d.1604
Bill,<br><br>Thanks much for your response.<br><br>You advise, "I do not see any reason for this to fail. INT is an elemental<br>function. INT ( [a,b,c] ) has an array result with the value [ INT(a),<br>INT(b), INT(c) ]. If you have a compiler that is rejecting this, you might<br>contact the vendor." in the context of my statement, "integer(kind=xx),<br>parameter :: bar(*) = int( [ z'0' ], kind=kind(bar) ) !.. Not OK". [...]
2016-04-25T14:11:01-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;82da01d.1604Re: How to use BOZ-literal-constants in an integer array constructor?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;bae8b856.1604
On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:41 PM, Vipul Parekh <parekhvs@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br><br>> Hi,<br>><br>> I need to construct an integer array of a named constant using BOZ-literal-constants as in<br>><br>> integer(kind=xx), parameter :: SOME_DATA(*) = [ z'..', z'..', .. ]<br>><br>> but the current standard doesn't seem to allow this.<br>><br><br>Correct. There was a proposal for Fortran 2008 to include a “BITS” data type that would have enabled something like this. However, in an attempt to reduce the size of the changes to the standard, it was dropped. While there were no actual technical problems with [...]
2016-04-25T15:20:05+00:00Bill Longhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;bae8b856.1604Re: Missing Fortran Forum issues
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;63b8dcb7.1604
Hi Loren<br><br>I just went to the ACM site<br><br>http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J286<br><http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J286&picked=prox&cfid=775080374&cftoken=5<br>1756888> &picked=prox&cfid=775080374&cftoken=51756888<br><br>They go back to 1982. Worst case scenario would be to 'print'<br><br>The missing ones.<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Ian Chivers<br><br>Current FF editor.<br><br>From: Fortran 90 List [mailto:COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of<br>Loren P Meissner<br>Sent: 23 April 2016 02:36<br>To: COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<br>Subject: Missing Fortran Forum issues<br><br>I have been looking at the stuff on my library shelf that I am no longer<br>using. [...]
2016-04-23T09:31:41+01:00Ian Chivershttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;63b8dcb7.1604Re: Missing Fortran Forum issues
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f072f80c.1604
Loren:<br><br>Nice to hear from you.<br><br>I tried to convince Jeanne Martin to give her collection of J3 papers to<br>CHM (I think she said 12 shelf-feet). I don't remember why that worked<br>out. If you still have contact with her, maybe you can convince her to<br>do it. From 07-007:<br><br>Jeanne T. Martin<br>11 Manti Terrace<br>Alamo, CA 94507 [...]
2016-04-22T19:00:34-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f072f80c.1604Missing Fortran Forum issues
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;6e7222f4.1604
I have been looking at the stuff on my library shelf that I am no longer using.<br><br>I haven't used Fortran for a long time, but I have a lot of documents from "the olden days."<br><br>I have begun discussions with Computer History Museum at Mountain View CA (not far from San Jose where I live), toward contributing some documents. [...]
2016-04-23T01:35:38+00:00Loren P Meissnerhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;6e7222f4.1604How to use BOZ-literal-constants in an integer array constructor?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;b88fc76.1604
Hi,<br><br>I need to construct an integer array of a named constant<br>using BOZ-literal-constants as in<br><br>integer(kind=xx), parameter :: SOME_DATA(*) = [ z'..', z'..', .. ]<br><br>but the current standard doesn't seem to allow this.<br><br>The standard states:<br><br>C4102 (R463) A boz-literal-constant shall appear only as a<br>data-stmt-constant in a DATA statement, or where<br>explicitly allowed in subclause 13.7 as an actual argument of an intrinsic<br>procedure [...]
2016-04-22T20:41:55-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;b88fc76.1604Re: reading from input_unit intrinsic assignment?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;9d6ba149.1604
For READ and WRITE statements.<br><br>"If an input item or an output item is allocatable, it shall be allocated.”<br><br>which would contradict the idea of reallocation, since it also applies to unallocated objects.<br><br>In the section on character input formatting for list-directed input:<br><br>"Let len be the length of the next eective item, and let w be the length of the character sequence. If len is less than or equal to w, the leftmost len characters of the sequence are transmitted to the next eective item. If len is greater than w, the sequence is transmitted to the leftmost w [...]
2016-04-13T12:16:59+00:00Bill Longhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;9d6ba149.1604Re: reading from input_unit intrinsic assignment?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;4ba19b40.1604
>I think you provided an allocated variable to be read into and<br>>because it was zero length no data was transferred.<br><br>I expected the variable to be reallocated<br>with the length equal to the length of the<br>input string.<br><br>>> I cannot see from 7.2.1.2 or 7.2.1.3<br>>> whether reading character variable<br>>> from input_unit is an intrinsic assignment or not?<br>><br>>Seems quite clear to me (quote is not from the version you quoted)<br>> "An intrinsic assignment statement is an assignment statement..." [...]
2016-04-13T12:09:22+01:00Anton Shterenlikhthttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;4ba19b40.1604Re: reading from input_unit intrinsic assignment?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;6fca7e48.1604
I think you provided an allocated variable to be read into and<br>because it was zero length no data was transferred.<br><br>> I cannot see from 7.2.1.2 or 7.2.1.3<br>> whether reading character variable<br>> from input_unit is an intrinsic assignment or not?<br><br>Seems quite clear to me (quote is not from the version you quoted)<br>"An intrinsic assignment statement is an assignment statement..." [...]
2016-04-13T10:41:38+00:00Harvey Richardsonhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;6fca7e48.1604reading from input_unit intrinsic assignment?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;b8cca2b6.1604
character(:), allocatable :: word<br>word = ""<br>read (*,*) word<br>write (*,*) word, len(word)<br>end<br><br>It seems "word" is not reallocated<br>when READ statement is executed.<br>len(word) always returns 0.<br><br>16-007 in 6.7.3.2p7 says "When an intrinsic assignment<br>statement (7.2.1.3) is executed, any noncoarray<br>allocated allocatable subobject is deallocated."<br><br>I cannot see from 7.2.1.2 or 7.2.1.3<br>whether reading character variable<br>from input_unit is an intrinsic assignment or not? [...]
2016-04-13T11:08:11+01:00Anton Shterenlikhthttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;b8cca2b6.1604oracle beta release
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c6ce7988.1604
There was a post in comp.lang.fortran by<br>Robert Corbett about the latest beta<br>Release of Oracle Solaris Studio<br><br>Here is an extract<br><br>On 2016-04-08, robert.corbett@oracle.com <robert.corbett@oracle.com> wrote:<br><br>> The beta version of the 12.5 release of Oracle Solaris Studio Fortran gets<br>the expected result. The beta is available as a free download from<br>><br>><br>http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solarisstudio/overview/sola<br>ris-studio-beta-program-2798438.html<br>><br>> Robert Corbett
2016-04-09T11:42:02+01:00Ian Chivershttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c6ce7988.1604Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;313297c0.1604
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 12:02 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:<br>> Or we could actually go back and do<br>> typealias properly (some people might agree with you that "type alias" is a<br>> bad idea, but a very large number of people would strongly disagree).<br><br>When we were debating typealias versus a new type, I had concluded that<br>there was nothing that could be done with typealias that could not be<br>done with a new type, but the opposite is not true. For example,<br>typealias is useless for generic resolution, or even more simply, just<br>for getting the processor to [...]
2016-04-01T11:01:03-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;313297c0.1604Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;8de3b1a1.1604
Right, that is precisely a proper version of the second kind I mentioned.<br>The "new type" requirement being associated with the *first kind*.<br><br>That is, "first kind" ~= "like the Ada facility", you get a new type;<br>"second kind" ~= "like the C facility", you get an alias for an intrinsic<br>integer type+kind.<br><br>Both kinds have some advantages, but many (most?) use cases can use either.<br>A few use cases require a specific one: some the "first kind" (new type),<br>some the "second kind" (integer type). [...]
2016-04-01T12:02:59+09:00Cohen Malcolmhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;8de3b1a1.1604Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;426e6a72.1603
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 16:33 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:<br>> We had a “proper” version of the second kind in the Fortran 2003<br>> draft, except that the description was unfortunately broken beyond<br>> repair in the time available before publication, so it was removed.<br><br>The version in 02-007 wasn't a "proper" version of the second kind. It<br>allowed a declaration of a type alias name for integer type, which isn't<br>a new type. It was "type alias" that was broken beyond repair (and a<br>bad idea in the first place), and anything that depended upon it was<br>rightfully removed.
2016-03-31T10:11:59-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;426e6a72.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;789c3f81.1603
We already have enums.<br><br>Languages usually don’t have two different kinds of enums.<br><br>Some people want one kind (“true separate type”), some want another (“just wrap around integral types”), most don’t care what kind.<br><br>We already have the second kind, though the syntax is not exactly brilliant (it is part of C interoperability). Some of the uses for the first kind can be emulated easily by a type with an integer component, maybe plus some operator overloading, and maybe making the component private. [...]
2016-03-30T16:33:58+09:00Cohen Malcolmhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;789c3f81.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c089a186.1603
Bill,<br><br>You mentioned, "any change that affects the typing system (apart from<br>trivial syntax enhancements like type(integer)) can involve non-trivial<br>implementation issues."<br><br>So do you think the kind of enum facility I indicate in my original note<br>(with a couple of examples in C++ for which I included pseudo code snippets<br>in Fortran) will involve "non-trivial implementation issues"? [...]
2016-03-30T01:41:17-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c089a186.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;5345079.1603
Dan, Tom:<br><br>You both brought up use cases.<br><br>Dan, you further wrote, "So if someone wants to propose enums, first tell<br>us what you want the enums to do. If we can find a good set of use-cases, then<br>we’ll ask the standards committee’s Data subgroup to propose the<br>specifications."<br><br>I thought I had a fairly descriptive write-up of what I want the enums to<br>do and I supplied my immediate use cases, a couple of them. As Van asked<br>you, why is this not enough? [...]
2016-03-30T01:30:22-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;5345079.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;56a0ca7d.1603
On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 22:24 -0400, Vipul Parekh wrote:<br><br>> If you were to develop again your proposal now, to what extent you<br>> think it will support the couple of examples I show in my first<br>> e-mail?<br><br>The examples would be supported, or at least the ones that looked<br>superficially like Fortran would be. I didn't read the C++ ones in<br>detail, but they looked like they might be the same examples. In my<br>proposal, explicit qualification of an enumerator with it's enumeration<br>type name would not be needed if there were no other entities in Class 1<br> [...]
2016-03-24T12:52:47-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;56a0ca7d.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c71b496f.1603
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 08:35 -0400, Tom Clune wrote:<br><br>> The president of the committee has indicated that the process will<br>> rely heavily on _use cases_. I.e. the proposer will need to explain<br>> likely/relevant scenarios for which the new feature significantly<br>> improves the implementation.<br><br>I have 58 pages of use cases, collected from more than 600 developers at<br>JPL during the last 53 years of using Fortran. The table of contents is<br>nearly four pages. Many of the proposals have been repeatedly requested<br>by other Fortran user communities. The fact that the list hasn't<br>dwindled suggests that [...]
2016-03-24T12:11:11-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;c71b496f.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;55b615f1.1603
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 11:12 -0700, Van Snyder wrote:<br>> On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 08:20 -0600, Dan Nagle wrote:<br>> > Hi,<br>> ><br>> > > On Mar 24, 2016, at 07:04 , Bill Long <longb@CRAY.COM> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > > And, it is perhaps mentioning that any change that affects the typing system (apart from trivial syntax enhancements like type(integer)) can involve non-trivial implementation issues.<br>> ><br>> > So if someone wants to propose enums, first tell us what<br>> > you want the enums to do. If we can find a good set of use-cases,<br> [...]
2016-03-24T11:16:25-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;55b615f1.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;cbf7977f.1603
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 08:35 -0400, Tom Clune wrote:<br><br>> Correct. And then the challenge will be to narrow priorities....<br>> So the goal is to also estimate the implementation difficulty as we<br>> propose/prioritize features for 2020. The president of the committee<br>> has indicated that the process will rely heavily on _use cases_.<br>> I.e. the proposer will need to explain likely/relevant scenarios for<br>> which the new feature significantly improves the implementation. [...]
2016-03-24T11:15:41-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;cbf7977f.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;d007340e.1603
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 08:20 -0600, Dan Nagle wrote:<br>> Hi,<br>><br>> > On Mar 24, 2016, at 07:04 , Bill Long <longb@CRAY.COM> wrote:<br>><br>> > And, it is perhaps mentioning that any change that affects the typing system (apart from trivial syntax enhancements like type(integer)) can involve non-trivial implementation issues.<br>><br>> So if someone wants to propose enums, first tell us what<br>> you want the enums to do. If we can find a good set of use-cases,<br>> then we’ll ask the standards committee’s Data subgroup to propose<br>> the specifications.<br>><br>> Are logical [...]
2016-03-24T11:12:27-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;d007340e.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f596951b.1603
Hi,<br><br>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 07:04 , Bill Long <longb@CRAY.COM> wrote:<br><br>> And, it is perhaps mentioning that any change that affects the typing system (apart from trivial syntax enhancements like type(integer)) can involve non-trivial implementation issues.<br><br>So if someone wants to propose enums, first tell us what<br>you want the enums to do. If we can find a good set of use-cases,<br>then we’ll ask the standards committee’s Data subgroup to propose<br>the specifications. [...]
2016-03-24T08:20:59-06:00Dan Naglehttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f596951b.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;e2f0093d.1603
On Mar 24, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Tom Clune <Thomas.L.Clune@NASA.GOV> wrote:<br><br>><br>>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Vipul Parekh <parekhvs@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Thank you for your response and your prior proposal effort. It received 4 "like"s, 1 "love" but 6 dislikes (at least no hate!), if I understood correctly. Considering the year of the proposal, you might have been way ahead of where Fortranners were that stage of language evolution and perhaps there was post-Fortran 2003 fatigue too! I wonder if there might be better reception now, given better understanding and appreciation of modern programming idioms [...]
2016-03-24T13:04:53+00:00Bill Longhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;e2f0093d.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;1e502447.1603
> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Vipul Parekh <parekhvs@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br>><br>> Thank you for your response and your prior proposal effort. It received 4 "like"s, 1 "love" but 6 dislikes (at least no hate!), if I understood correctly. Considering the year of the proposal, you might have been way ahead of where Fortranners were that stage of language evolution and perhaps there was post-Fortran 2003 fatigue too! I wonder if there might be better reception now, given better understanding and appreciation of modern programming idioms and paradigm, particularly with OO, among many in the Fortran community Of [...]
2016-03-24T08:35:57-04:00Tom Clunehttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;1e502447.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;a79b725b.1603
Thank you for your response and your prior proposal effort. It received 4<br>"like"s, 1 "love" but 6 dislikes (at least no hate!), if I understood<br>correctly. Considering the year of the proposal, you might have been way<br>ahead of where Fortranners were that stage of language evolution and<br>perhaps there was post-Fortran 2003 fatigue too! I wonder if there might<br>be better reception now, given better understanding and appreciation of<br>modern programming idioms and paradigm, particularly with OO, among many in<br>the Fortran community Of course, from what I gather, the committee won't<br>be considering any new proposals until [...]
2016-03-23T22:24:50-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;a79b725b.1603Re: What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;d97dd90a.1603
I proposed this in 2004. See paper<br>http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-139r1.ps. It met with an unwelcome<br>reception, as can be seen in<br>http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-302.xls. There would be no<br>conflicts with the standard to introduce enumeration types. If they<br>were introduced, they would not invalidate any program that conforms to<br>current standards. My later thoughts on the topic is that enumeration<br>types ought to be extensible. [...]
2016-03-23T16:32:24-07:00Van Snyderhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;d97dd90a.1603What are the possible hurdles to enhanced "enum" functionality in Fortran?
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;e02755c1.1603
Hi,<br><br>I posted this on comp.lang.fortran, but not sure how many of you read that<br>newsgroup. I apologize for any duplication of effort.<br><br>Regards,<br>Vipul Parekh
2016-03-23T16:52:18-04:00Vipul Parekhhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;e02755c1.1603Re: to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;5f56a12f.1603
>From: Cohen Malcolm <malcolm@NAG-J.CO.JP><br>><br>>Bill Long suggests:<br>>>This suggests a bug in the compiler, its I/O libraries, or the job<br>>>launch/process management software. Start with a bug against the compiler.<br>><br>>Could be, but there are many other possibilities, including but not limited<br><br>Confirmed as bug in OpenCoarrays:<br><br>https://github.com/sourceryinstitute/opencoarrays/issues/160<br><br>Many thanks for the clarifications.<br><br>Anton
2016-03-14T02:29:26-07:00Anton Shterenlikhthttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;5f56a12f.1603Re: to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;33bc5a33.1603
>> The expectation is that<br>>>WRITE output from all images but 1 should appear<br>>>at standard output.<br><br>Technically, each image has its own set of units. That means that each<br>image has its own default (*) output unit, each of which is conceptually<br>connected to a different file.<br><br>How that maps into what appears at your terminal is not within the scope of<br>the Fortran standard to determine. A common approach is to merge all the<br>output files from each of the images and display the result, that being what<br>most users would probably want as the default. But it [...]
2016-03-14T11:45:26+09:00Cohen Malcolmhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;33bc5a33.1603Re: to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;39ce34d7.1603
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:<br><br>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:26:47 -0800<br>> From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@BRIS.AC.UK><br>> Reply-To: Fortran 90 List <COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK><br>> To: COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<br>> Subject: to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour<br>><br>> The following program is conforming:<br>><br>> write (*,*) 0<br>> end<br>><br>> The expectation is that on exit zero will<br>> appear on standard output. However, am I right<br>> that the standard does not (cannot?) require<br>> what, if anything, should appear at standard output? [...]
2016-03-14T14:13:26+13:00John Harperhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;39ce34d7.1603Re: to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f35859ec.1603
On Mar 11, 2016, at 3:26 AM, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@BRIS.AC.UK> wrote:<br><br>> The following program is conforming:<br>><br>> write (*,*) 0<br>> end<br>><br><br>yes<br><br>> The expectation is that on exit zero will<br>> appear on standard output. However, am I right<br>> that the standard does not (cannot?) require<br>> what, if anything, should appear at standard output? [...]
2016-03-11T14:11:54+00:00Bill Longhttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;f35859ec.1603to what extent does standard defines IO behaviour
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;4e68b749.1603
The following program is conforming:<br><br>write (*,*) 0<br>end<br><br>The expectation is that on exit zero will<br>appear on standard output. However, am I right<br>that the standard does not (cannot?) require<br>what, if anything, should appear at standard output?<br><br>Annex C.6.4, para 3 has "The OPEN statement<br>describes properties of the connection to the file<br>and might or might not cause physical activities to<br>take place. It is for an implementation to define<br>properties of a file beyond those required in<br>standard Fortran." [...]
2016-03-11T01:26:47-08:00Anton Shterenlikhthttps://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=COMP-FORTRAN-90;4e68b749.1603