| Rich Townsend 2006-05-26, 7:04 pm |
| Richard Edgar wrote:
> Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Minor nitpick, but I thought that not declaring INTENT was _not_ the
> same as INTENT(INOUT). Specifically, anything declared INOUT had to be
> adjustable, even if it wasn't adjusted. Thus, it would not be legal to
> pass a PARAMETER to an INOUT argument, but it would be legal to pass it
> to an argument with no INTENT declared (Sorry for messing up the
> standardese in this, but I hope my meaning is clear)?
>
> Richard
So in this sense an INTENT(inout) argument must have some storage associated
with it, but this restriction doesn't apply to an INTENT-less argument?
cheers,
Rich
(c.l.ada trimmed coz this is getting Fortran-specific, and they seem too nice to
spam with my own ignorace-driven questions)
|