From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Sep 21 00:06:18 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521) id 56A0E37607; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:06:18 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E914A37605 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:06:15 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i8KM4LjH016784 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:04:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from longb@cray.com) Received: from relayb.mw.cray.com (relayb.us.cray.com [192.168.252.110]) by mail1.cray.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/gw-1.5) with ESMTP id i8KK8Lpw000042; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:08:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from saffron.mw.cray.com (saffron.mw.cray.com [172.31.27.14]) by relayb.mw.cray.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/hub-1.5) with ESMTP id i8KK8JrD008856; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-20-209 [172.31.20.209]) by saffron.mw.cray.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/badger-1.4) with ESMTP id i8KK8I8t568239; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <414F38D6.8070809@cray.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:08:54 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: j3@j3-fortran.org, sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) Last minute sanity check on Modules TR References: <200409201843.i8KIhrYM003180@math.jpl.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200409201843.i8KIhrYM003180@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > >When one prepares an interface for a module subroutine P that has no >arguments, separating its interface and body, one writes > > module M > interface > module subroutine P > end subroutine P > end interface > end module M > >In fixed form, the subroutine statement could be written > > module subroutineP > In fixed form it makes no difference if you include the space or not. It "could be written" with the space and also look just like a MODULE statement. In fixed form the statement modules are a great idea is also just fine. Things like that should be enough to discourage writing new codes (the only ones relevant to the issue above) in fixed form. > >One writes the same thing in the module subprogram part. > >This is identical in form to a MODULE statement. Does this concern >anybody enough to want to reconsider it? > Not enough to reconsider. We could be content with context dependent syntax (as Richard points out, it's not the only case). If we wanted to change something, we could require the empty () after the subroutine name in this context. We have a bunch of constraints that start with 'if MODULE appears within the ...', so adding one more would be straightforward. We already require the () if there is a BIND(C) clause in a subroutine statement. That requirement was prompted by a fixed source form issue as well. I'm not necessarily promoting this change, but just pointing out that there is an easy fix if people think it is needed. Cheers, Bill > > > > > -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120