Using maxval or minval functions [duplicate] - fortran

I would like to access the the elements of an array in a an arrayed derived type using the subroutine sum_real. That is: sum over first entry in the weight for all people.
type my_type
real, dimension(:), allocatable :: weight
real :: total_weight
end type my_type
type (my_type), dimension (:), allocatable :: people
type (my_type) :: answer
allocate (people (2))
allocate (people (1)%weight(2))
allocate (people (2)%weight(2))
people (1) % weight(1) = 1
people (2) % weight(1) = 1
people (1) % weight(2) = 3
people (2) % weight(2) = 3
call sum_real ( people (:) % weight(1), answer % total_weight )
What I want to do is similar to the answer found in Array of derived type: select entry, except for the fact that I have an allocated array in an arrayed derived type instead of an single element.
But, I get a compiler error:
error #7828: The part-name to the right of a part-ref with nonzero rank has the ALLOCATABLE attribute (6.1.2). [WEIGHT]

What you try is not possible if your component is allocatable. The reference (6.1.2) is actually a reference to the official standard documents, which prohibits this.
The reason is simple, the allocatable components (scalar or arrays) are stored in a different part of memory than the derived type itself. Therefore if you write
sum(people%total_weight)
or
people%total_weight = 0
it is no problem, total_weight is not allocatable, it is stored within the derived type and the compiler just goes in a simple loop and sets one field after another to zero. You can know the address of each %totalweight beforehand.
On the other hand
sum(people%weight)
or
people%weight = 0
each %weight is stored elsewhere and you don't have any simple formula to compute where is each %weight(i).
The solution is either, to fix the size of the array, if possible
real, dimension(2) :: weight
or use a do loop
s = 0
do i = 1, size(people)
S = S + sum(people(i)%weight)
end do

If you have a F2003 compiler, and the bounds of the component array are the same for a particular parent array object, a third approach to the size specified by constant expression/use a do loop methods specified by VladimirF is to parameterize the type.
type my_type(n) ! This type has one parameter - n
integer, len :: n ! The parameter n is a length parameter.
real :: weight(n) ! This component depends on that parameter.
end type my_type
type (my_type(:)), dimension(:), allocatable :: people
! This integer is the size of the people component. Because
! people is allocatable it can be determined at runtime.
number_of_people = 2
! This integer is the size of the weight component that we want
! in the array people. Other arrays and scalars of type
! my_type can have different sizes for that component.
! Because people is allocatable this can be determined at
! runtime.
number_of_weights = 2
allocate( my_type(number_of_weights) :: people(number_of_people) )
! Define people%weight here.
people(1)%weight(1) = 1
...
! Using sum intrinsic for the sake of example
do i = 1, people%n
! The argument to sum is an array section.
print *, sum(people%weight(i))
! ^ ^ Reference to an element of a component
! | Reference to the entire people array
end do
Every element in an array of parameterized type has the same type parameters, hence every weight component in people has the same bounds, hence references such as people%weight become "regular".
Code using this approach (or the constant component size specification approach) still has to follow the restriction for component references that only one part of the reference can have non-zero rank (you can't work with people%weight as a whole as both people and the weight component have rank one).
In the allocatable component case some components in some elements might not be allocated and where they are allocated the component might have different bounds, making a "regular" reference to the data in the component across the elements of the array conceptually difficult.

Related

How to use dimension and declare multiple arrays with different size in same line using Fortran?

I am given this code:
...
IMPLICIT REAL*8(a-h,o-z)
DIMENSION L1(L), L2(M), L3(N)
...
I want to use IMPLICIT NONE but I don't know how to declare variable type using DIMENSION and maintain one line declaration of L1 to L3.
Something like:
INTEGER, DIMENSION :: L1(L), L2(M), L3(N) !(this doesn't work)
The syntax for the dimension statement differs from that of specifying the dimension attribute in a declaration statement.
So, whereas
dimension i(4) ! Implicitly typed
gives i array nature of size 4,
integer, dimension(4) :: i
is the way to go.
Now to come to your question about declaring multiple arrays in one line:
integer i(4), j(5), k(6)
Finally, one can still use
integer, dimension(4) :: i, j(5), k(6), l
making i and l arrays of size 4 and j and k arrays of size 5 and 6.

Index multiple non-adjacent elements of a Fortran array

Is there a way in Fortran to access many elements of an array without using a loop?
For example given array of 100 elements
real(100) :: a
can I do something like this to access elements 1,4,7,54,81 that do not follow a regular step?
a(1,4,7,54,81)= 3.21423
you could use a vector subscript: a( (/1,4,7,54,81/) )= 3.21423
As noted before, an array may be used as the indexes of an array. This is a so-called vector subscript.
A([1,4,7,54,81]) = 3.21423
sets the elements given to that value. (This is the same as the earlier answer but using the Fortran 2003+/modern array constructor notation.)
The array can be any rank-1 array, such as a variable or expression:
integer :: idx(5)=[1,4,7,54,81]
A(idx) = 3.21423
A(idx-1+1) = 3.21423
Of course, vector subscripts are of use in other settings, such as referencing:
print *, A(idx)
call sub(A(idx))
A(idx) = A(idx+1) + 5
However, array sections with vector subscripts are subject to various restrictions, such as:
not always may they be arguments to a procedure;
a pointer may not point to them;
not all such sections may be assigned to.
In the third case, if the same index appears more than once in the subscript we can't define it. So
print *, A([1,5,1])
is allowed, but
A([1,5,1]) = 3.
is not.
RESHAPE and WHERE are worth looking at.
If you are determining which elements to 'pull out' then maybe ALLOCATE a new variable and stuff the elements of A into B.
Maybe something like this:
REAL, DIMENSION(100) :: A
LOGICAL, DIMENSION(100) :: A_Mask
INTEGER :: SizeB
REAL, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: B
!...
A_Mask = .FALSE.
WHERE(A > 1.0)
A_Mask = .TRUE.
ENDWHERE
SizeB = SUM(A_Mask)
!... then allocate B and fill it.

Defining a real scalar equal to an 1x1 matrix

Let A and B be matrices of size 1 times n and n times 1, respectively.
Then the multiplication of A with B is a 1 times 1 matrix.
Which is the better way to assign the value of MATMUL(A,B) to a real number x?
I would like to write:
x=MATMUL(A,B) ! <<--- but this is wrong.
The above expression is wrong because I'm trying to assign a 1 times 1 matrix to a real number.
My solution is to define a 1 times 1 matrix C and with this:
C=MATMUL(A,B)
x=C(1,1) ! <--- this solution is ok, but is too long
But, there exists a better way to assign MATMUL(A,B) to the real number x?
The entire code with my question is as follow:
PROGRAM testing
!
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL :: A(1,2),B(2,1),C(1,1),x
!
A(1,1)=1.0; A(1,2)=3.5
B(1,1)=2.0; B(2,1)=5.0
C=MATMUL(A,B) ! it is ok
x=MATMUL(A,B) ! it is wrong
x=C(1,1) ! it is ok <--- exists a better way ??
!
END PROGRAM testing
You have noticed that it is not possible to do intrinsic assignment of an array to a scalar (and C is a rank-2 array of size 1). x=C(1,1) is the correct way to do such assignment from the single element of C to the scalar x.
There are other ways to abstract that correct assignment statement, but probably little value in doing so.
In your specific case, however, there is alternative. Rather than matmul, consider dot_product.
x = DOT_PRODUCT(A(1,:), B(:,1)) ! Scalar result, intrinsic assignment allowed.
per my comment, you can write a very simple function to extract the first element of an array:
real function first(matrix) !return the (1,1,1,..) element of an array
real, intent(in) :: matrix(*)
first=matrix(1)
end function
simply use as:
real :: a(1,2),b(2,1),x
...
x=first(matmul(a,b))
note if you want to make sure this is only used for a dimension(1,1) array you need to use an explicit interface and do:
real function first(matrix)
real, intent(in) :: matrix(:,:)
if(.not.all(shape(matrix).eq.[1,1]))reporterror()
first=matrix(1,1)
end function

access operators "[ ], ( ), { }" overloading in Fortran 90 or 2003

Can I overload entry access operators [], () or {} for derived data types in FORTRAN 2003? In the following example, I want to define access scheme for the derived data type "custom".
type custom
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: a
end type custom
type(custom) :: t
! after some initialization
! .....
! .....
! .....
!
t%a( (/ 1, 2, 5 /) ) ! return entries located in positions 1, 2, and 5
t{ (/ 1, 2, 5 /) } ! ?????? I want to define what stuff it should return
How can I do that?
Update:
Note that I don't want to use the array "t%a" directly and do conventional sub-array operation on that. Instead, I want to redefine array operation for data type "custom" such that t{'first'} should return a pointer the first entry in t%a or t%a(1) so I can say
t['first']= 18
or
print *, t['first'].
Also with additional overloading I want to get a functionality like t[1] = 18 works like t['first'] = 18.
This rather depends on what you mean by "return".
By itself the example offered
t%a([1,2,5]) ! Using syntax offered by Fortran 2003
doesn't return anything: it's a subobject. With a reference to that subobject we can do various things:
print *, t%a([1,2,5])
t%a([1,2,5]) = 27
t%a([1,2,5]) = sin(real(t%a([1,2,5])))
but there's still no concept of "returning". Crucially, as we shall see, these are not expressions.
Coming to the question, can t[], t(), t{} mean something, then the answer is, simply, "no".* You may want, for example, to say:
t[1,2,5] = 1
to mean
t%a[1,2,5] = 1
but that is not something to consider.
It would be possible to create an expression like
print *, t%ref([1,2,5])
but we're quite in the non-definable territory.
However, as you now mention pointers, there's more to say. Whilst the preferred syntax t[1] or t["first"] is not available we still have the option of type-bound procedures. For example, a function call t%ref("first") may well be able to return a pointer to the first element of t%a. For example, t%ref(1) could be like
module reference
implicit none
type custom
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: a
contains
procedure ref
end type custom
contains
function ref(t, idx)
class(custom), target, intent(in) :: t
integer, intent(in) :: idx
integer, pointer :: ref
ref => t%a(idx)
end function ref
end module reference
use reference
implicit none
type(custom), target :: t
integer, pointer :: b
t%a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
print *, t%a
b => t%ref(1) ! Fortran 2008 allows direct assignment
b = 8 ! but compiler support is very limited.
print *, t%a
end
If desired ref can be made generic so that t%ref("first") (etc.) is acceptable.
* I'm basing that on the fact that here t is a scalar. However, as mentioned by Vladimir F in a comment () and [] potentially do mean things. The first relates to arrays and the second to co-arrays. Syntax, then, is an issue, but this answer looks more at the mechanism than syntax.

Fortran: Allocatable array of derived type containing an array of derived type

I am currently working on a large Fortran program where I have a discrete numerical grid that contains a series of particles that I track within the bounds of the grid. To do this I have defined the following three derived types:
type :: particle
real(pr), dimension(3) :: r = 0.0_pr ! position
real(pr), dimension(3) :: p = 0.0_pr ! momentum
end type particle
type :: rcell ! position cell
integer, dimension(6) :: bpoints = 0 ! cell grid points
integer :: np = 0 ! number of particles in cell
type(particle), dimension(50) :: parts ! particles in cell
end type rcell
type :: pcell ! momentum cell
integer, dimension(6) :: bpoints = 0 ! cell grid points
integer :: np = 0 ! number of particles in cell
end type pcell
...
type(rcell), dimension(:), allocatable :: rbin ! position space bins
type(pcell), dimension(:), allocatable :: pbin ! momentum space bins
...
allocate(rbin(100))
allocate(pbin(100))
First of all, is this an acceptable use of derived types (i.e. having an allocatable array of a derived type that contains an array of a derived type)? The code compiles fine using gfortran 4.8.3.
However, I encounter some strange issues when trying to debug the code using gdb 7.7.1 under Fedora. When trying to look at the data in an element of the rbin array (using print rbin(10)%bpoints for example) gdb always prints out (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) even though I have assigned data to bpoints (e.g. rbin(10)%bpoints = (/1,2,1,2,1,2/)). If I look at the data in an element of the pbin array using print pbin(10)%bpoints for example, then I get exactly what I expect. Does anyone have some insight on this issue?
I use these kinds of structures in my code all the time. No problem compiling or running under on linux-like OS using gfortran. The intel compiler had issues with this type of code 5 years ago, but I have moved away from that compiler lately so I'm not sure if they've caught up to the newer Fortran standards now. I use MPI, so I can rarely use gdb and can't be helpful about why its throwing errors.
Anyway, I agree with Mark; modern Fortran (compiled using gfortran) can handle this type of structure just fine.