<br><tt><font size=2>j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org wrote on 03/12/2010 02:28:54
AM:<br>
<br>
> The contradiction looks like it is almost inherent in the "feature"
<br>
> of confusing <br>
> disassociated pointers with absent optionals.<br>
> <br>
> What an annoying feature this is. Can we not just take it out?<br>
> <br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I'll second this :-)</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Reading more on these intrinsics, now it appears a
lot issues will be exposed. In particular many of these intrinsics
can appear in "constant expressions" that are supposed to be
evaluated at compile time. If an unallocated allocatables or disassociated
pointers can be used in these expressions, although silly, then compilers
have to do extra extra work to ignore them since they're all going be unallocated
or disassociated. Indeed an annoying feature.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Cheers,</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jim Xia<br>
<br>
XL Fortran Compiler Test<br>
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7<br>
Phone (905) 413-3444 Tie-line 313-3444<br>
email: jimxia@ca.ibm.com<br>
D2/YF7/8200 /MKM<br>
<br>
</font><a href=http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/fortran/xlfortran><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/fortran/xlfortran</font></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>