On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:08:55 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the test. > > Did you mean for me to incorporate it into the patch, or do you mean to > contribute it separately, if the feature happens to be accepted? These were your tests that i quoted but i or my MUA botched to add one level of quotes -- sorry for that. > > On Jun 19, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see explicit tests with _Complex nor __complex__. Would we > > want to check these here, or are they handled thought the "underlying" > > tests above? > > Good question. The notion of using complex types to hold booleans > hadn't even crossed my mind. Maybe it is not real, it just sparkled through somehow. > On the one hand, there doesn't seem to be reason to rule them out, and > that could go for literally any other type. > > On the other, there doesn't seem to be any useful case for them. Can > anyone think of one? We could either not reject other such uses and wait or we could reject them and equally wait for complaints. I would not dare to bet who pops up first, fuzzers or users, though arguments of the latter would probably be interesting.. I don't have an opinion (nor a use-case), really, it was just a thought (i mentioned tinfoil hat, did i ;). > > > I'd welcome a fortran interop note in the docs > > Is there any good place for such interop notes? I'm not sure I'm > best-suited to write them up, since Fortran is not a language I'm > very familiar with, but I suppose I could give it a try. > I'd append to your extend.texi hunk below the para about uninitialized a note to the effect of: Note: Types annotated with this attribute may not be Fortran interoperable. I would not go into too much detail about C_BOOL nor LOGICAL for i reckon anybody sensibilised to either two of that attribute, C and Fortran will draw her conclusions. Didn't really think how easy it would be to handle this on the user side, but i fear the modern iso_c_binding way would need help from the compiler for the lazy. I'd expect a user to be able to trivially translate this in wrappers done the old way though, which is a pity from an educational and modernisation POV. Didn't look closely, so this guesstimate might be all wrong, of course. thanks,
