From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Jun 25 21:55:32 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5PJtWLT061439 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:55:32 +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 mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h5PJtNEc061434 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:55:27 +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 (8.12.9/8.12.3/gw-1.14) with ESMTP id h5PJt99D024859; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:55:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from saffron.us.cray.com (saffron.mw.cray.com [172.31.27.14]) by relayb.mw.cray.com (8.12.9/8.12.6/hub-1.2) with ESMTP id h5PJt7wo029578; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:55:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-20-91 [172.31.20.91]) by saffron.us.cray.com (8.8.8/Cray-server-1.6-nhsmod011017) with ESMTP id OAA62677; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:55:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3EF9FFBB.2030201@cray.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:02:03 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk, "J.L.Schonfelder" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2817) Submodule association and host association References: <200306251824.h5PIOkHx060871@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040001010603030106000800" X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --------------040001010603030106000800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > > >> >> > >One possibility that has been suggested is to extend the Submodule idea >to let them be inside of modules instead of just beside them. Modula-2 > It seems like this would defeat the main virtue of submodules - avoiding compilation cascades. This is an example of the type of "off-topic" features I'd like to avoid. >always allowed modules within modules. I used this facility occasionally >to partition the resources within a module into those that are available >globally (and of course everywhere within the module) and those that are >shared by a subset of the module's procedures. If Fortran had done this >in 1988 -- and Modula-2 was already ten years old by then, so we had a > and Modula-2 is pretty much dead now. I'm generally skeptical about emulation of failure as a motivation for an idea. >model -- we wouldn't have needed accessibility attributes for module >entities (but we would still have needed them for components). > > >One could argue "With separate submodules one wouldn't have any need for >contained submodules, so what's the point of allowing them?" I don't know, > But in a previous post the philosophy seemed to be "even if there is no need for a feature we should not disallow it". I think the problem with that philosophy is the difficulty in drawing the line between "artificial restriction" and "feature bloat". The other problem I see is that the length of the feature list is roughly proportional to the time you have to wait before an actual compiler implementation appears. 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 --------------040001010603030106000800 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:

    


One possibility that has been suggested is to extend the Submodule idea
to let them be inside of modules instead of just beside them.  Modula-2

It seems like this would defeat the main virtue of submodules - avoiding compilation cascades. This is an example of the type of "off-topic" features I'd like to avoid.

always allowed modules within modules.  I used this facility occasionally
to partition the resources within a module into those that are available
globally (and of course everywhere within the module) and those that are
shared by a subset of the module's procedures.  If Fortran had done this
in 1988 -- and Modula-2 was already ten years old by then, so we had a

and Modula-2 is pretty much dead now. I'm generally skeptical about emulation of failure as a motivation for an idea.

model -- we wouldn't have needed accessibility attributes for module
entities (but we would still have needed them for components).


One could argue "With separate submodules one wouldn't have any need for
contained submodules, so what's the point of allowing them?"  I don't know,

But in a previous post the philosophy seemed to be "even if there is no need for a feature we should not disallow it". I think the problem with that philosophy is the difficulty in drawing the line between "artificial restriction" and "feature bloat". The other problem I see is that the length of the feature list is roughly proportional to the time you have to wait before an actual compiler implementation appears.

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

--------------040001010603030106000800--