Re: [Patch, fortran] PR51791 - [OOP] Failure to resolve typebound function call with base object in parentheses

[Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>]

Dear Paul,

Paul Richard Thomas:
> A question for the standard aficianados: Are there other base object
> expressions that are legal?

I don't think so. (Ignoring RESHAPE, SPREAD etc., cf. PR 47505.)

> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC9/x86_64 - OK for trunk?

OK. Thanks for the patch.

> *************** resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code,
> *** 9208,9215 ****
> !       gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L",
> ! 		&lhs->where);
> --- 9208,9216 ----
> !       gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L "
> ! 		 "- check that there is a matching specific subroutine "
> ! 		 "for '=' operator",&lhs->where);

I have to admit that I like the initial wording better - with "in 
assignment" changed to "in intrinsic assignment". (In F2008, I would 
even write: "Nonallocatable variable", but gfortran does not yet support 
allocatable with intrinsic assignments.)

(By the way, there is no matching defined assignment - no need for the 
users to check whether there is one; they only need to check why there 
is none ;-)

Tobias