Re: question about elemental subroutines

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr (Dominique Dhumieres)]

Brooks, Richard,

Thanks for the quick answer.

Yes, I have missed the reference to 12.4.1.6, the first three lines of the
paragraph was devoted to MVBITS and I missed the fact that the last line
was concerning the general case.  Now I am not sure to fully understand
your answers and what I have been able to read of 12.4.1.6.  Am I correct
if I understand them along with note 12.28, that the lines

   call nonassign (x(2), x(1))
   call nonassign (x(3), x(2))

are correct, but not

   call nonassign (x(2:3), x(1:2))

because x(2) is common to the two arguments?

However I am puzzled by the following note:

> NOTE 12.31
> Because a nonpointer dummy argument declared with INTENT(IN) shall not be
> used to change the associated actual argument, the associated actual
> argument remains constant throughout the execution of the procedure.

the 'y' argument of 'nonassign(x,y)' is INTENT(IN), should not x(1:2)
"remains constant throughout the execution of the procedure"? or what am I 
missing?

Note that the code I sent is an avatar of the last test in
elemental_subroutine_3.f90 from Paul Thomas.  If it is illegal, it should
probably not be part of the test suite.

Dominique