On Jun 22, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:08:55 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva 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
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?
On Jun 19, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> I don't see explicit tests with _Complex nor __complex__. Would we
> want to check the
On Jun 16, 2023, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> So, such a type would be incompatible with vanilla LOGICAL variables
> and with C interop logical variables.
Yeah, it would. It's something else, and if you choose to use such a
type in an interface, it would need to be handled as such. Presumably,
absen
On Apr 6, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> 29 For C_BOOL, the internal representation of .TRUE._C_BOOL and
> .FALSE._C_BOOL shall be the same as those of
> 30 the C values (_Bool)1 and (_Bool)0 respectively.
I'm not changing any of the standard types, FWIW. The proposed
extension enable
