(j3.2006) ASSOCIATED

[Robert Corbett]

Malcolm Cohen wrote:

> Robert Corbett wrote:
> 
>> I see now that fixing the specifications of the intrinsic functions is
>> going to be a lot of fun.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> I do not think that the authors of the standard intended it to be
>> impossible for cases (vi) or (vii) to occur.
> 
> 
> In particular, Van's interpretation would change the meaning of existing 
> F90/95/2003 programs, and we have not noted this incompatibility in 
> clause 1. Therefore the standard has a contradiction.
> 
> The contradiction looks like it is almost inherent in the "feature" of 
> confusing disassociated pointers with absent optionals.
> 
> What an annoying feature this is.  Can we not just take it out?

We often disagree, but on this point I am in complete agreement with
you.

Van's idea of providing two signatures for some intrinsic functions
provides a way to redefine ASSOCIATED so that it will work, but the
rewrite required is not small.

Bob Corbett