Dear All,
Committed as r183032.
Thanks
Paul
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> Paul Richard Thomas:
>
>> A question for the standard aficianados: Are there other base object
>> expressions that are legal?
>
>
> I don't think so. (Ignoring RESHAPE, SPREAD etc., cf. PR 47505.)
>
>
>> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC9/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
>
>
> OK. Thanks for the patch.
>
>> *************** resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code,
>> *** 9208,9215 ****
>> ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L",
>> ! &lhs->where);
>> --- 9208,9216 ----
>> ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L "
>> ! "- check that there is a matching specific subroutine "
>> ! "for '=' operator",&lhs->where);
>
>
> I have to admit that I like the initial wording better - with "in
> assignment" changed to "in intrinsic assignment". (In F2008, I would even
> write: "Nonallocatable variable", but gfortran does not yet support
> allocatable with intrinsic assignments.)
>
> (By the way, there is no matching defined assignment - no need for the users
> to check whether there is one; they only need to check why there is none ;-)
>
> Tobias
--
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
--Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
