From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Jul 15 12:20:05 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6FAK59H094305 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:20:05 +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 h6FAJrEc094297 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:20:00 +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 h6FAHeD12870 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:17:40 +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 LAA02778 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:28:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3F13D6E2.2050005@rl.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:26:42 +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: [Fwd: Dummy arg names and redeclaration] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dummy arg names and redeclaration Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:12:53 +0100 (BST) From: Malcolm Cohen I 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. Steve Morgan said: >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? This is a redeclaration, which we do not even *ALLOW* anywhere else. >Is there really complexity in this over and above that already in compilers? There is complexity for the user who will not know what is going on. >If not (and possibly even if!) I'd prefer to allow different names. The idea of allowing multiple declarations is IMO bad enough, but allowing them to differ is completely unacceptable. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)