From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Jun 25 21:16:19 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5PJGJoe061168 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:16:19 +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 h5PJGDEc061162 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:16:15 +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 19VFkW-0001bM-C4 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:16:08 +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 19VFkW-0003fL-9p for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:16:08 +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 19VFkW-0003fI-2k for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:16:08 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:16:08 +0100 From: "J.L.Schonfelder" To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2816) Thanks to Bill... Message-ID: <21893150.1056572168@jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200306251708.h5PH8AtR060546@dkuug.dk> References: <200306251708.h5PH8AtR060546@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/) *19VFkW-0001bM-C4*bDQC9awGrKo* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On 25 June 2003 18:13 +0100 John Reid wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:51:44 -0500 > From: Dick Hendrickson > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk > Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2813) Thanks to Bill... > References: <200306210235.h5L2ZcVH034177@dkuug.dk> > <200306251402.h5PE2u4Z059600@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > "J.L.Schonfelder" wrote: > > > > I am not overly keen on SEPARATE but I could live with it. I entirely > agree > with its appearing as a prefix on the FUNCTION/SUBROUTINE > statement > introducing either the interface declaration and the > separate module > procedure definition. > > My only disagreement is with host association as the association rule > > applying between the disjoint scopes of a submodule and its parent. Van > > says he is not convinced by my arguments against host association. I > can > only reply that I am totally unconvinced that there are any > arguments FOR > host association. I have seen no agrument pointing out > any technical, > expressive or functional advantages for using this > association rule apart > from the trivial one that it already exists. > > I thought one of the major motivations for sub-modules was to allow > large modules to be split into smaller parts to make maintenance > and development easier. Doesn't this make host association > the only natural model? If I take a big module and split it up > into parts, why would I want the parts to obey different rules from > what they currently follow? Precisely! But if you introduce a new disjoint scoping unit that is the submodule you do not want any redeclaration masking the inherited entities . This causes a different environment to be created just where you want the old one to be guaranteed to be visible intact and unchanged. Host association is the entirely the wrong association rule to use if trying to guarantee as near as possible the same environment for the interface body and the procedure body. That is my whole objection. > > For the same reason, I'd think allowing SEPARATE routines to be in > the parent module should be allowed. It allows, but doesn't > require, subprograms to be moved around in the module/submodule > tree with minimum changes. Absolutely!!! > > Codes grow, and as they get enhanced we don't want to make it > hard to move things around as needs or understanding of the code > changes. > > > Dick Hendrickson > -- Lawrie Schonfelder Honorary Senior Fellow University of Liverpool 1 Marine Park, West Kirby, Wirral, UK, CH48 5HN Phone: +44 (151) 625 6986