[Patch/fortran] Add documentation section about implemented F2003 features
Richard E Maine
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov
Wed Aug 3 17:42:00 GMT 2005
Rereading my own post, one unclear referent and one possibly confusing
typo.
On Aug 3, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Richard E Maine wrote:
>> hope I have explained well enough why I think that the F95
>> allocatables are a good thing
>
> Agree. Again, I've never known a single person who thought otherwise.
> That includes the people who wrote it.
> It was more of an oversight and failure to come up with a good
> alternative. I don't think they thought this was actively a good idea
> as much as that they didn't have a good idea at the time (but later
> found one).
By "it" above, I meant the f90 stuff; that's what was an oversight..
>
>> and that F90 allocatables should not be
>> supported,
>
> See above. You already do support "f90 allocatables". There is no such
> thing as an f90 allocatable that isn't also an f90 allocatable.
Make that "There is no such thing as an f95 allocatable that isn't also
an f90 allocatable."
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
More information about the Fortran
mailing list