From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Jul 15 11:52:24 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6F9qOhc094182 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:52:24 +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 h6F9qEEc094176 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:52:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.s.morgan@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.83]) by mx2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19cMTg-0005dm-OQ for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:52:08 +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 19cMTg-0003gk-Mi for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:52:08 +0100 Received: from pc102199.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.102.199] helo=102198-83472r.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19cMTg-0003gh-Kf for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:52:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:52:08 +0100 From: Steve Morgan To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2877) [Fwd: Consequences of current design of Modules TR] Message-ID: <65852781.1058266328@102198-83472r.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200307150923.h6F9NvGs094025@dkuug.dk> References: <200307150923.h6F9NvGs094025@dkuug.dk> 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/) *19cMTg-0005dm-OQ*C8HiqRLlxaE* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Hi Malcolm, You said: > Irrespective of "adopting Lawrie's proposal", I think that the dummy > argument names have to be the same. To do otherwise would be complexity > that provides the potential for confusion but no useful functionality. > I'm not sure there's no useful functionality. Allowing different dummy argument names gives the same functionality as that given for ordinary procedures in Fortran, viz. programmers (especially in a group scenario) can use their own preferred names to implement a procedure. Not allowing them (different dummy argument names) seems counter to Fortran's original design for procedures - doesn't it? Is there really complexity in this over and above that already in compilers? If not (and possibly even if!) I'd prefer to allow different names. Cheers, Steve. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. J. S. Morgan Tel. 0151-794-3746 (3719 for messages) Computing Services Department Fax. 0151-794-3759 The University of Liverpool email. J.S.Morgan @ liv.ac.uk Chadwick Building Peach Street Liverpool L69 7ZF ---------------------------------------------------------------------