I want to create a dynamic variable name using Fortran.
The variable name will be obtained by concatenating a string and another string/integer. Then I want to use this variable name to store a value or another variable.
e.g.
! assign values to 2 variables
my_string = h
my_integer = 1
! perform concatenation resulting in the dynamic variable name, h1
! Set the value of variable h1 to another integer value
h1 = 5
I fear that you will not be able to do this. Fortran requires that variables have names and types at compile time. You (or other SOers) may come up with some kludge to simulate what you want, but it will be a kludge.
Why do you want to do this in Fortran ? There are plenty of languages around which do permit this sort of variable declaration.
EDIT
Well, I thought about it some more, and here's a kludge, unfinished. First a UDT for 'dynamic' variables:
type dynamic_var
character(len=:), allocatable :: label
class(*), allocatable :: value
end type
declare some space for such variables:
type(dynamic_var), dimension(:), allocatable :: run_time_vars
and, working with your original data
allocate(run_time_vars(10)) ! No error checking, reallocate if necessary
! lots of code
write(run_time_vars(1)%label,'(a1,i1)') my_string, my_integer
allocate(run_time_vars(1)%value, source = my_value)
This compiles, but doesn't run and I'm not going to stay long enough to fix it, I'll leave that as an exercise to anyone who cares.
The write to the label field isn't right.
The sourced allocation to the value field doesn't seem to work correctly. Might need to write a 'decode' function to use like this:
allocate(run_time_vars(1)%value, source = decode(my_value))
Like I said, it's a kludge.
I think you want to use a data structure. If you have pairs or groups of values that go together, then create a derived data type which can hold both. There's an explanation on this page:
http://web.mse.uiuc.edu/courses/mse485/comp_info/derived.html
If you have a list of these pairs (like your string and int above), then you can create an array of these types. Example code below taken from the page linked above:
type mytype
integer:: i
real*8 :: a(3)
end type mytype
type (mytype) var
Array:
type (mytype) stuff(3)
var%i = 3
var%a(1) = 4.0d0
stuff(1)%a(2) = 8.0d0
An significant benefit of doing this is that you can pass the pairs/groups of items to functions/subroutines together. This is an important programming principle called Encapsulation, and is used extensively in the Object Oriented programming paradigm.
No, this is not possible in Fortran.
For more information, look into Reflection (computer programming).
Clearly, for reasons given above, this is not legit Fortran (and thus you're going into trouble ...). You may use smart (congrats guys!) kludges, but ...
Instead of using variables h concatenated with 1, 2 or whatever number, why not creating array h(1:N) where N does not have to be known at compilation time : you just have to declare array h as a allocatable.
This is, I think, the legit way in Fortran 90+.
Related
I am programming a Fortran module, which is linked to external main program. I can only alter the subroutine. I have to detail a lot of data, but always the same. It takes too much time to do this on every call of the subroutine. How can I initialise the data only at the first call?
Currently, this is the subroutine:
subroutine sdvini(statev,coords,nstatv,ncrds,noel,npt,layer,kspt)
implicit none
integer imdat(100,100,50)
imdat(1,1,1:33)=(/1,8,13,24,48,72,111,148,156,165,182&
&,189,194,207,210,216,236,247,254,270,311,319,339,343,367,376&
&,393,397,421,438,447,473,492/)
.
. lots of data
.
do something
return
end
This setting of values on the first call to a procedure and retaining the values can be performed by explicit initialization. We often use the term initialization, as in this question, to mean an assignment as part of a setting up process. However, initialization means something more precise in Fortran terms.
An explicit initialization suitable for this question would be something like the very simple case
integer, save :: i=1 ! SAVE attribute would be implied, but made explicit
This is like having the assignment applied the first time the procedure is entered.
We can also use a data statement:
integer, save :: i
data i /1/
The SAVE attribute is what ensures that the value persists between entries to the procedure.
For arrays the idea is the same, perhaps using array constructors and reshape.
For very large arrays it is impractical to use data statements or initializers. Further, there are restrictions on what may appear in initializing a saved local variable. However, another idiom would be like
subroutine sub
logical, save :: firsttime=.TRUE.
integer, save :: obj(100,100,50)
if (firsttime) then
obj = ... ! Setting the value somehow, maybe even with a read
firsttime = .FALSE.
end if
end subroutine
Say the following module is given to me, and I am not allowed to edit it:
module somemod
type somestruct
character(40) somestr
end type
end module
And I use it in this code:
program myprog
use somemod
implicit none
character(size(somestruct%somestr)) localstr !Is this possible?
end program
Is there syntax accomplish what the marked line is trying to do? That is, can I get the size of an array in an user-defined data structure without instantiating the data structure?
First,
character(40) somestr
is not an array, it is a character string of length 40.
The difference is substantial, it is not just nitpicking. You use arrays and strings differently. See Difference between "character*10 :: a" and "character :: a(10)" for more.
The length of a string is inquired by the intrinsic function len().
But unfortunately, you cannot call it on a component of a derived type, without first having a variable (instance) of that type.
So you need
program myprog
use somemod
implicit none
type(somestruct) :: o
character(len(o%somestr)) localstr !This is possible.
end program
If you needed the size of an array component, it would be the same, but with the size() intrinsic function.
I would like to use deferred-length character strings in a "simple" manner to read user input. The reason that I want to do this is that I do not want to have to declare the size of a character string before knowing how large the user input will be. I know that there are "complicated" ways to do this. For example, the iso_varying_string module can be used: https://www.fortran.com/iso_varying_string.f95. Also, there is a solution here: Fortran Character Input at Undefined Length. However, I was hoping for something as simple, or almost as simple, as the following:
program main
character(len = :), allocatable :: my_string
read(*, '(a)') my_string
write(*,'(a)') my_string
print *, allocated(my_string), len(my_string)
end program
When I run this program, the output is:
./a.out
here is the user input
F 32765
Notice that there is no output from write(*,'(a)') my_string. Why?
Also, my_string has not been allocated. Why?
Why isn't this a simple feature of Fortran? Do other languages have this simple feature? Am I lacking some basic understanding about this issue in general?
vincentjs's answer isn't quite right.
Modern (2003+) Fortran does allow automatic allocation and re-allocation of strings on assignment, so a sequence of statements such as this
character(len=:), allocatable :: string
...
string = 'Hello'
write(*,*)
string = 'my friend'
write(*,*)
string = 'Hello '//string
write(*,*)
is correct and will work as expected and write out 3 strings of different lengths. At least one compiler in widespread use, the Intel Fortran compiler, does not engage 2003 semantics by default so may raise an error on trying to compile this. Refer to the documentation for the setting to use Fortran 2003.
However, this feature is not available when reading a string so you have to resort to the tried and tested (aka old-fashioned if you prefer) approach of declaring a buffer of sufficient size for any input and of then assigning the allocatable variable. Like this:
character(len=long) :: buffer
character(len=:), allocatable :: string
...
read(*,*) buffer
string = trim(buffer)
No, I don't know why the language standard forbids automatic allocation on read, just that it does.
Deferred length character is a Fortran 2003 feature. Note that many of the complicated methods linked to are written against earlier language versions.
With Fortran 2003 support, reading a complete record into a character variable is relatively straight forward. A simple example with very minimal error handling below. Such a procedure only needs to be written once, and can be customized to suit a user's particular requirements.
PROGRAM main
USE, INTRINSIC :: ISO_FORTRAN_ENV, ONLY: INPUT_UNIT
IMPLICIT NONE
CHARACTER(:), ALLOCATABLE :: my_string
CALL read_line(input_unit, my_string)
WRITE (*, "(A)") my_string
PRINT *, ALLOCATED(my_string), LEN(my_string)
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE read_line(unit, line)
! The unit, connected for formatted input, to read the record from.
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: unit
! The contents of the record.
CHARACTER(:), INTENT(OUT), ALLOCATABLE :: line
INTEGER :: stat ! IO statement IOSTAT result.
CHARACTER(256) :: buffer ! Buffer to read a piece of the record.
INTEGER :: size ! Number of characters read from the file.
!***
line = ''
DO
READ (unit, "(A)", ADVANCE='NO', IOSTAT=stat, SIZE=size) buffer
IF (stat > 0) STOP 'Error reading file.'
line = line // buffer(:size)
! An end of record condition or end of file condition stops the loop.
IF (stat < 0) RETURN
END DO
END SUBROUTINE read_line
END PROGRAM main
Deferred length arrays are just that: deferred length. You still need to allocate the size of the array using the allocate statement before you can assign values to it. Once you allocate it, you can't change the size of the array unless you deallocate and then reallocate with a new size. That's why you're getting a debug error.
Fortran does not provide a way to dynamically resize character arrays like the std::string class does in C++, for example. In C++, you could initialize std::string var = "temp", then redefine it to var = "temporary" without any extra work, and this would be valid. This is only possible because the resizing is done behind the scenes by the functions in the std::string class (it doubles the size if the buffer limit is exceeded, which is functionally equivalent to reallocateing with a 2x bigger array).
Practically speaking, the easiest way I've found when dealing with strings in Fortran is to allocate a reasonably large character array that will fit most expected inputs. If the size of the input exceeds the buffer, then simply increase the size of your array by reallocateing with a larger size. Removing trailing white space can be done using trim.
You know that there are "complicated" ways of doing what you want. Rather than address those, I'll answer your first two "why?"s.
Unlike intrinsic assignment a read statement does not have the target variable first allocated to the correct size and type parameters for the thing coming in (if it isn't already like that). Indeed, it is a requirement that the items in an input list be allocated. Fortran 2008, 9.6.3, clearly states:
If an input item or an output item is allocatable, it shall be allocated.
This is the case whether the allocatable variable is a character with deferred length, a variable with other deferred length-type parameters, or an array.
There is another way to declare a character with deferred length: giving it the pointer attribute. This doesn't help you, though, as we also see
If an input item is a pointer, it shall be associated with a definable target ...
Why you have no output from your write statement is related to why you see that the character variable isn't allocated: you haven't followed the requirements of Fortran and so you can't expect the behaviour that isn't specified.
I'll speculate as to why this restriction is here. I see two obvious ways to relax the restriction
allow automatic allocation generally;
allow allocation of a deferred length character.
The second case would be easy:
If an input item or an output item is allocatable, it shall be allocated unless it is a scalar character variable with deferred length.
This, though, is clumsy and such special cases seem against the ethos of the standard as a whole. We'd also need a carefully thought out rule about alloction for this special case.
If we go for the general case for allocation, we'd presumably require that the unallocated effective item is the final effective item in the list:
integer, allocatable :: a(:), b(:)
character(7) :: ifile = '1 2 3 4'
read(ifile,*) a, b
and then we have to worry about
type aaargh(len)
integer, len :: len
integer, dimension(len) :: a, b
end type
type(aaargh), allocatable :: a(:)
character(9) :: ifile = '1 2 3 4 5'
read(ifile,*) a
It gets quite messy very quickly. Which seems like a lot of problems to resolve where there are ways, of varying difficulty, of solving the read problem.
Finally, I'll also note that allocation is possible during a data transfer statement. Although a variable must be allocated (as the rules are now) when appearing in input list components of an allocated variable of derived type needn't be if that effective item is processed by defined input.
An OCaml module usually contains at least one abstract type whose idiomatic name is t. Also, there's usually a function that constructs a value of that type.
What is the usual / idiomatic name for this?
The StdLib is not consistent here. For example:
There's Array.make and a deprecated function Array.create. So that function should be named make?
On the other hand, there's Buffer.create but not Buffer.make. So that function should be named create?
Some people find this way of module design makes OCaml programming easier, but this is not a mandatory OCaml programming style, and I do not think there is no official name for it. I personally call it "1-data-type-per-1-module" style. (I wrote a blog post about this but it is in Japanese. I hope some autotranslator gives some useful information to you ...)
Defining a module dedicated to one data type and fix the name of the type t has some values:
Nice namespacing
Module names explain about what its type and values are, therefore you do not need to repeat type names inside: Buffer.add_string instead of add_string_to_buffer, and Buffer.create instead of create_buffer. You can also avoid typing the same module names with local module open:
let f () =
let open Buffer in
let b = create 10 in (* instead of Buffer.create *)
add_string b "hello"; (* instead of Buffer.add_string *)
contents b (* instead of Buffer.contents *)
Easy ML functor application
If an ML functor takes an argument module with a data type, we have a convention that the type should be called t. Modules with data type t are easily applied to these functors without renaming of the type.
For Array.create and Array.make, I think this is to follow the distinction of String.create and String.make.
String.create is to create a string with uninitialized contents. The created string contains random bytes.
String.make is to create a string filled with the given char.
We had Array.create for long, to create an array whose contents are filled with the given value. This behavior corresponds with String.make rather than String.create. That's why it is now renamed to Array.make, and Array.create is obsolete.
We cannot have Array.create in OCaml with the same behaviour of String.create. Unlike strings, arrays cannot be created without initialization, since random bytes may not represent a valid OCaml value for the content in general, which leads to a program crash.
Following this, personally I use X.create for a function to create an X.t which does not require an initial value to fill it. I use X.make if it needs something to fill.
I had the same question when I picked up the language a long time ago. I never use make and I think few people do.
Nowadays I use create for heavy, often imperative or stateful values, e.g. a Unicode text segmenter. And I use v for, functional, lighter values in DSL/combinator based settings, e.g. the various constructors in Gg, for example for 2D vectors, or colors.
As camlspotter mentions in his answer the standard library distinguishes make and create for values that need an initial value to fill in. I think it's better to be regular here and always use create regardless. If your values support an optional initial fill value, add an optional argument to create rather than multiply the API entry points.
NOTE: I'm still investigating this issue - please don't look into it yet - the mistake may be elsewhere
I would like an argument to a subroutine to be OPTIONAL, but that argument also happens to be an assume shape array. When I try to compile the module containing this subroutine, I get the following error:
PGF90-S-0189-Argument number 3 to (routine): association of scalar actual argument to array dummy argument (location)
The routine looks like this:
SUBROUTINE EXAMPLE(A, B, C)
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: A, B
INTEGER, OPTIONAL, DIMENSION(:), INTENT(IN) :: C
INTEGER :: TEST
IF (PRESENT(C)) THEN
TEST=C(1)
PRINT *,TEST
ELSE
PRINT *,A,B
ENDIF
END SUBROUTINE EXAMPLE
It is contained within a module. I get the error when I try to call it with only two arguments from a subroutine which is USEing the module.
I have only found one possibly related question on the Portland Group forums here:
http://www.pgroup.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?t=624&sid=d76fdf8ca2bf4fc3109f4f49b1de0ad7
The answer boils down to the user using an optional argument which has not been allocated - I don't know if this applies in my case as I'm not using 'C' outside of the IF(PRESENT(C)) block, but could there be an implicit allocation going on when defining a variable as assumed shape, which cannot be carried out when it is not passed in the first place?
This problem is now resolved - you can indeed use assumed shape arrays as optional arguments. As pointed out in the comments - the error stemmed from an old version of a source file which was not being regenerated by a pre-processing step due to a bug. As a result, the call was not what I thought it was - it actually contained a single integer as the third argument.
Thanks for the help all.