<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Exactly what i was looking in Intel® Fortran Compiler</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930448#M87640</link>
    <description>Exactly what i was looking for. 

Thanks.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:15:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pat97269</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-10-22T17:15:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>interface containing derived type</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930446#M87638</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is that normal to have the same declaration of type being considered as to different type by the error :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;"The type of the actual argument differs from the type of the dummy argument".&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I attached a testfile.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:53:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930446#M87638</guid>
      <dc:creator>pat97269</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-10-19T15:53:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Unless the specific rules in</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930447#M87639</link>
      <description>Unless the specific rules in Article 4.5.1.3, "Determination of derived types", of the Fortran 2003 standard are satisfied, repeating a type definition word for word may still cause the compiler to regard the two types so declared as distinct.

When I saw this "feature" the first time, I was surprised, too. However, it does make it easier for the compiler to keep track of user-defined types. 

The IMPORT ... statement is provided to alleviate the problem that you ran into.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:27:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930447#M87639</guid>
      <dc:creator>mecej4</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-10-20T13:27:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Exactly what i was looking</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930448#M87640</link>
      <description>Exactly what i was looking for. 

Thanks.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:15:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/interface-containing-derived-type/m-p/930448#M87640</guid>
      <dc:creator>pat97269</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-10-22T17:15:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

