Author |
Message |
Topic: ftn95 5.20 - ALLOCATABLE in TYPE |
wws
Replies: 3
Views: 6310
|
Forum: Support Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:47 pm Subject: Re: |
FTN95 aims to conform to the 95 Fortran standard.
It has bits of Fortran 2003 but does not currently aim to conform to this standard.
If this feature is included in the 2003 standard then all well ... |
Topic: Array constructor issue |
wws
Replies: 4
Views: 6095
|
Forum: Support Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:57 pm Subject: |
Thank you, Paul. Consider this a FYI, and not a critical need. |
Topic: Array constructor issue |
wws
Replies: 4
Views: 6095
|
Forum: Support Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:40 pm Subject: Array constructor issue |
In the following test, FTN95 seems to lose track of the fact that variable I is used as a ac-do-variable in the array constructor:
program init_bug
implicit none
integer :: i
character(1 ... |
Topic: Error when using a CHARACTER expression as actual arg |
wws
Replies: 4
Views: 7097
|
Forum: Support Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:04 am Subject: |
The shape of the result of an ELEMENTAL function is the same as the shape of its input argument(s). So my test case does illustrate the way things are supposed to work. |
Topic: Error when using a CHARACTER expression as actual arg |
wws
Replies: 4
Views: 7097
|
Forum: Support Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:09 pm Subject: |
Whoops - the above is a PURE version of the test, and also fails. Here is the ELEMENTAL version:
program ftn95bug
implicit none
character(8) :: indata(4) = (/ &
'12344321', '9876 ... |
Topic: Error when using a CHARACTER expression as actual arg |
wws
Replies: 4
Views: 7097
|
Forum: Support Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:06 pm Subject: Error when using a CHARACTER expression as actual arg |
Consider the following, which uses a character array expression using an ELEMENTAL function:
program ftn95bug
implicit none
character(8) :: indata(4) = (/ &
'12344321', '98766789' ... |
Topic: PRIVATE not implemented properly? |
wws
Replies: 9
Views: 11745
|
Forum: Support Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: |
Unfortunately, FTN95 has implemented this wrongly. The PRIVATE in his Module_1 should prevent m2 from 'leaking through' to the USEr of Module_1. Unless, of course, it is explicitly made public - as i ... |
|