From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Jun 25 16:36:04 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5PEa40m059789 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:36:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mx2.liv.ac.uk (mx2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.180]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h5PEZrEc059783 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:35:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.83]) by mx2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19VBNE-0006B5-Pl for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:48 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=mailhub3.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19VBNE-00043e-Nt for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:48 +0100 Received: from vp135021.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.135.21] helo=jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19VBNE-00043b-JW for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:48 +0100 From: "J.L.Schonfelder" To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2807) Directions for Modules TR Message-ID: <5072964.1056555348@jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200306240017.h5O0HGFQ050176@dkuug.dk> References: <200306240017.h5O0HGFQ050176@dkuug.dk> Originator-Info: login-id=jls; server=pop1.liv.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19VBNE-0006B5-Pl*PagPixU4Jjg* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On 23 June 2003 20:17 -0400 Aleksandar Donev wrote: > No you are not. I clearly remember that at meeting 164 some wanted to be > able to put the body of the separate procedure in the *same* module. I, > like you, see no point in this and think it should not be allowed, but > cannot recall what arguments were put to the contrary. A. there is no reason not to allow the degenerate case and it is another arbitrary restriction to prohibit it. B. there is a long standing desirability for allowing the full interface declaration in the generic interface body (designing proper generic interface resolution) and also for this to be repeated in the implementation. There are sometimes very good reasons to include the procedure body definition in a single module. -- Lawrie Schonfelder Honorary Senior Fellow University of Liverpool 1 Marine Park, West Kirby, Wirral, UK, CH48 5HN Phone: +44 (151) 625 6986