From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Jul 15 16:57:06 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6FEv6PC095756 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:57:06 +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 h6FEv1Ec095751 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:57:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.83]) by mx2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19cREe-0001my-Nb for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:56 +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 19cREe-0007lw-Ln for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:56 +0100 Received: from vp135020.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.135.20] helo=jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19cREe-0007lt-Fw for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:56 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:57 +0100 From: "J.L.Schonfelder" To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2878) [Fwd: Consequences of current design of Modules TR] Message-ID: <14285942.1058284616@jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200307150952.h6F9qP2B094193@dkuug.dk> References: <200307150952.h6F9qP2B094193@dkuug.dk> Originator-Info: login-id=jls; server=pop1.liv.ac.uk 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/) *19cREe-0001my-Nb*wmApTAis6tI* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On 15 July 2003 10:52 +0100 Steve Morgan wrote: > 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. The key word is "useful"! The only reason we allow the dummy argument names defined by an interface body and the current external procedure implementation is that because it is external and independently compiled there is no way that the correspondence could be checked. I believe Malcolm is right the dummy argument names are crutial with separate interface and procedure implementation. The redeclaration should be effectively redundant, "checkable documentation" is what it should be. > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Lawrie Schonfelder Honorary Senior Fellow University of Liverpool 1 Marine Park, West Kirby, Wirral, UK, CH48 5HN Phone: +44 (151) 625 6986