From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk  Tue Jul 15 12:53:54 2003
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6FArsrs094511
	for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:53:54 +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 mx1.liv.ac.uk (mx1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.179])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6FArlEc094506
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:53:49 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from j.s.morgan@liverpool.ac.uk)
Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.83])
	by mx1.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
	id 19cNRG-0008Bp-K9
	for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:42 +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 19cNRG-00086J-IN
	for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:42 +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 19cNRG-00086G-Gj
	for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:42 +0100
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:42 +0100
From: Steve Morgan <j.s.morgan@liverpool.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2879) [Fwd: Dummy arg names and redeclaration]
Message-ID: <69546625.1058270021@102198-83472r.liv.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <200307151020.h6FAK6sW094316@dkuug.dk>
References:  <200307151020.h6FAK6sW094316@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/) *19cNRG-0008Bp-K9*KaLKX00L/F6*
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Precedence: bulk



--On 15 July 2003 11:26 +0100 John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Dummy arg names and redeclaration
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:12:53 +0100 (BST)
> From: Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@nag.co.uk>
>
>
> 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.
>

Yes, I realise it's different but the functionality and usefulness is very 
similar from the user's point of view.

>  >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.
>

Hmm! I suppose it depends on the user. ;-)

I think most Fortran programmers will be used to this 'sort' of thing.

Perhaps on reflection it's not that big a deal provided redeclaration (with 
same names) is allowed - so I'll shut up.

Cheers,

Steve.