Chris MacMackin

I did switch to using 1-byte integer arrays, because they are guaranteed to be as small as possible. The reason I didn't use `class(*)` is because they are completely incapable...

> I do not completely understand this issue. In particular why using pop() do you need low level details of the concrete type? An example can help me to understand....

That sounds like a good approach. I don't think I'll go as far as a get_type() method, but perhaps is_fifo() which will be true if it is a first-in-first-out data...

I used the transfer approach because I find that use of `class(*)` can be buggy, although no doubt this has improved in more recent versions of GCC. In particular, I've...

I certainly don't mind. Could you please take the approach of using an abstract parent type for both the pointer and non-pointer containers and maintain, as far as is practical,...

The only other thing would be the standard requiring a compiler flag to turn off the implicit-save behaviour. This is hardly ideal and I also doubt they would go for...

Not wanting to blow my own horn, but FORD might be useful for this. What we could do is use it as a library to build up its internal model...

I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I think I'd prefer to fork the useful parts of FORDs code rather than use it as a library. I'm...

I can think of no circumstance in which `explicit none` should be omitted. Put it at the start of every module, submodule, or program. On 16-01-18 04:35 PM, Stefano Zaghi...

Agreed. So long as they are within a scope in which `implicit none` has been specified. (Hence why I didn't list functions and subroutines as places where it should be...