Adding UNION/MAP -- Feedback and tips pls!

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Dear All,

I have to confess that my first reaction was that we shouldn't be
doing STRUCTURE/UNION at all.  However, I would be content if it lived
behind an option.

Cheers

Paul

On 2 March 2013 09:15, N.M. Maclaren <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 2 2013, W Spector wrote:
>>
>>
>> The "." to separate component names does conflict with Fortran-90s
>> user-defined operator syntax.  Code should use "%" to be as unambiguous and
>> as Standard-conforming as possible.  So I would also add my vote that, if it
>> 'dot compatibility' implemented, it only be enabled via a compatibility
>> option.
>
>
> Speaking as another user, I doubt that there is any other plan.  I use
> gfortran for teaching MPI and OpenMP, and would get very, very unhappy
> if there were such an extreme aberration available by default.
>
>
>> Should UNION/MAP itself also be enabled by a compatibility option?
>> (Separate from a 'dot compatibility' option - if implemented?)
>
>
> In my view, strongly "yes".  It's not just the usual GNU extension,
> which are often considered for adding to the standard, but something
> more like Cray pointers, which ARE enabled by an option.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>



--
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
       --Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy