Dear All, Has this been occasioned by this thread or have other makes encountered the same difficulty in implementation?
Cheers Paul On 10 August 2015 at 20:57, Bader, Reinhold <reinhold.ba...@lrz.de> wrote: > Hello Toon, all else, > > a bit unfortunate, in my opinion (I was present at the discussion). > I've in the meantime taken some effort to implement what the design pattern > experts might call an "abstract factory with full dependency inversion" as > a bare-bones framework and have attached an archive with three variants: > > * pre_interp contains the code that is presently valid (and indeed compiles > fine > with both gfortran and ifort), but would become invalid due to indirect > parent module access > * post_interp contains a variant that uses a helper module (mod_glue) to avoid > the indirect ancestor use access (if there is a more concise way to do > this, > I'd like to know ... up to now this is the best I can do) > * post_interp_v2 another shorter variant that pushes the extension types into > a submodule > (with the disadvantage that these types are not really reusable, and > that the monster module problem is shifted to a monster submodule, or a > chain of > submodules) > You may need to edit the Makefiles to build. > > I would of course like to know how people feel about reintroducing this > restriction, > especially since the only reason given was that ancestor module access and its > use association overriding host association would confuse users ... which is a > problem which in my opinion could have been dealt with in a slightly different > manner without removing the permission for indirect parent module-referencing > use statements. It is not clear to me whether *implementations* other than > gfortran have problems with this, though. > > More germane to this thread's discussion actually is another interp that was > also passed, > and which appears entirely uncontroversial: > http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/207/15-209.txt > It seems to me that this would permit avoiding generation of the .smod files > for > modules that do not specify an separate module procedure interface. > > Cheers > Reinhold > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >> Although I do not immediately know if this is relevant for *this* >> debate, J3 passed the following (attached) interpretation on submodules >> the past week (it still has to go to several mail ballots, but still), >> overwhelmingly prefering option 3: >> >> [attached] >> >> Kind regards, >> >> -- >> Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 >> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands >> At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ >> Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
