Re: test for allocatable function (f95 extension)

[Richard E Maine <Richard dot Maine at nasa dot gov>]

On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I can't find where it directly gives the same constraint for 
> ALLOCATABLE as an attribute rather than in a statement of its own, but 
> the first paragraph of 5.2 says,...

Yep. You've found it. I hate the way that the standard does that. I 
consider it a cop-out. Instead of actually giving the full and correct 
details, the standard gives some of them and uses this paragraph as an 
excuse to make you figure out the rest (some parts of which are not at 
all obvious). Just because I was editor, that didn't mean I had the 
time, ability, or authority to completely rewrite all of chapter 5 with 
a better organization.  Sorry. :-( In my opinion, this mess arises from 
an inadequate separation of syntax and meaning. The standard should 
describe what all the attributes mean and how they interact. Then it 
should separately describe the various forms of syntax used to specify 
attributes. I think that would be a much better way to organize the 
material, and much less prone to confusions like this. Oh well. :-(

> This is, I believe, something added in one of the F95 TRs and in F2003.

Yes. From previous Uttam posts, I gather that he is preparing test 
cases for several f2003 features.

--
Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov       |  experience comes from bad judgment.
                            |        -- Mark Twain