Re: [Patch, fortran] PR20896 - dummy procedures interfaces

[Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>]

Dominique,
> It is not the way I read 12.4.1.2. My reading is:
> 1) if it is typed or it is used as a function (I assume it means
> something like a=b() within the scoping unit), then it is a function;
> 2) if it is not typed and used as a subroutine (I assume it means
> something like CALL b() within the scoping unit), then it a subroutine;
> 3) otherwise it will be resolved at the level of the external procedure
> to which it is passed as a dummy argument, hence could not be used in a 
> generic interface.
>   
OK then that is what I will do. 
> But indeed, this is far beyond what I really understand in f95 (if any:
> when I first looked at f90, I thought they had produced a monster,
> and don't feel to have been proven wrong!-). Nevertheless  it seems
> that the xlf engineers had a reading similar to mine.
>
>   
> > I think that you are a bit mixed up.
> >     
I should have said that so was I :-)
> Yes indeed, but the logic I tried to follow was:
> without type and without implicit none, s_ext could be a
> real function (at least I still do not see why it could not
> be), then with implicit none it should be typed to be a function
> (no default type), hence implicit none could establish s_ext
> as a subroutine. I agree this is highly convoluted (but who would
> claim that f95 is not) and apparently things are not working this
> way (xlf still complains that it does know if it is a function
> or a subroutine).
>
>   
It's the requirement that the typing should be explicit or that the 
procedure be referenced as a function, is it not?

Thanks

Paul