In article <h6upc9$4...@naig.caltech.edu>, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >< Consider, for example: > >< SUBROUTINE Fred (X) BIND(C) >< CHARACTER*(*) :: X >< END SUBROUTINE Fred > >< CHARACTER(LEN=100) :: string >< CALL Fred(string(40:60)) >< CALL Fred(string(5:50)) > >< This is not currently allowed and raises all sorts of 'interesting' >< implementation and portability questions. For example, I defy anyone >< to write Fred portably in C :-) > >You mean, how does FRED know the length? It seems to me the >usual question for Fortran assumed size arrays. Assuming that >FRED can tell from the passed string, it seems fine to me. >If not, it is a problem.
Precisely. And the whole point of my question is how many people WANT to do it, from the point of view of extending BIND(C). >< Even when Fred has an explicit length, there are some problematic >< cases, which could catch out programmers in one language that don't >< know the other fairly well. But those are much less of a problem >< than the common need for assumed length CHARACTER arguments. > >Maybe Fortran programmers who started in Fortran 66 will not >have so much problem with this. The usual way would be to >pass the length, as with assumed size arrays. I believe terminating >strings with unusual (likely not null) characters was also done. Yeah. But there are a decreasing number of us left :-) Prefix length strings were also used. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
