From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Jul 11 17:11:03 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6BFB3ek068124 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:11:03 +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 inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6BFAvEc068119 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:10:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h6BF8lD06780 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:08:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02267 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:19:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3F0ED505.8050805@rl.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:17:25 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2869) Interfaces References: <200307101854.h6AIsF5s062025@dkuug.dk> <200307110951.h6B9pBQm066608@dkuug.dk> <200307111429.h6BEThKx067920@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Aleksandar Donev wrote: > John Reid wrote: > > >>Please let's require complete agreement in all interfaces of a separate >>procedure. We are trying to keep this simple, aren't we? > > I am in support of always requiring *completely* matching characterstics. > > But I do believe there is benefit in *not* requiring to repeat the > redeclaration, but rather allow: > > SEPARATE PROCEDURE Name > ! No dummy argument/result/attribute redeclaration allowed > ! No FUNCTION or SUBROUTINE > END PROCEDURE > > The reason being, as I explained earlier, that there are developers who would > be programming both the module and submodule in sync (Ctrl-? on the keyboard > to switch from the interface to the implementation) and requiring redundant > cut-and-paste is not nice. Otherwise I will end up using a shared include > file and macros that generate the interface and use these both in the module > and the submodule. But why if I don't have to? That's OK. What I dislike is redeclaration without complete agreement John.