Am 19.10.24 um 12:12 schrieb FX Coudert:
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the clarification. I really hope that it makes it into the standard, > I do not disagree that it is useful, I just really wish we don’t have
to maintain> long-term a lot of nonstandard (or worse,
standard-incompatible) extensions.
I agree there. I was very unpleasantly surprised when I learned that
this had not made the WG5 work list.
-std=legacy took a lot of ugly work over the years. But the context, > as you
explain, is reassuring.
I think so, too.
And many thanks for the effort of implementation, I know it is far > from
trivial.
Thanks!
Could you post a link to the specification that is currently implemented in
gfortran?
That is at https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-116.txt .
In the implementation, I actually made two extensions to it. The first
one was to correct an oversight by myself, I had overlooked SUM and
PRODUCT when, during the amendment process, I was asked for a list
of intrinsics that should apply to UNSIGNED variables. The second
is RANDOM_NUMBER - if people want random bits, be it for a simulated
throw of dice or for other, non-cryptographic purposes, then this is
an obvious candidate.
i.e., if I understand correctly, your proposal + the amendments of the
committee.
Basically, yes.
Best regards
Thomas
