From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: 30 May 2006 15:20:53 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccmzczqpyi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
 <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <1hfxsjh.t88mchrssv9cN%nospam@see.signature>
 <nXGdg.33893$4L1.2348@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <e57h7j$20n$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu> <m2irns5zil.fsf@grendel.local>
 <e57n33$3kb$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>
 <1hfy4xh.xeesc61gidq8eN%nospam@see.signature>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1149016855 28048 192.74.137.71 (30 May 2006 19:20:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 19:20:55 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4680 comp.lang.fortran:10659
Date: 2006-05-30T15:20:53-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) writes:

> Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Yes. Without an explicit INTENT(), Fortran defaults to INTENT(inout)
> 
> That is not true. Fortran has 4 distinct intent() values - in, out,
> inout, and unspecified. All 4 are different. The unspecified case is
> sort of like inout, but it is *NOT* the same.
> 
> The unspecified case is largely historical. ... [snip]

Thanks for the good explanation.

It seems that for newly-written Fortran, one would want a compiler
option that requires the INTENT to be specified.  And passing a DO-loop
index variable as a parameter should require INTENT(in).  In that case,
Fortran would be pretty much equivalent to Ada in this regard.

- Bob