Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article , sturlamolden wrote: > >You also made this claim regarding Fortran's C interop with strings: > >"No, I mean things like 'Kilroy was here'. Currently, Fortran's C >interoperability supports only strings of length 1, and you have >to kludge them up as arrays. That doesn't work very we

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

sturlamolden wrote: > On 23 Aug, 20:42, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > That is precisely what I am investigating. TR 29113 falls a LONG > > way before it gets to any of the OOP data - indeed, you can't even > > pass OOP derived types as pure data (without even the functionality) > > in its model.

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article <1032c78d-d4dd-41c0-a877-b85ca000d...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sturlamolden wrote: >On 23 Aug, 12:35, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > >> I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between >> Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do >> more co

Python/Fortran interoperability

I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported for C interoperability by the current Fortran standard. Any suggestions as to other ways that

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

James Van Buskirk wrote: > "Richard Maine" wrote in message > news:1j4y84p.v5docbtueccmn%nos...@see.signature... > > > One might plausibly regard this as a kludge, but it is a kludge that is > > part of the Fortran standard and is guaranteed to work with all Fortran > > compilers. I almost sa

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

"Richard Maine" wrote in message news:1j4y84p.v5docbtueccmn%nos...@see.signature... > There might be a confusion here (and I'm not even sure on whose part) on > a picky but important detail of wording. I have seen multiple people > confused by this one before. In fact, some potential confusion w

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 21:24, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > You might also like to consider the converse problem: how to write > a Fortran function that takes a C string of arbitrary length and > uses it. That's what the code I showed you does. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article , glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > >< Consider, for example: > > > >< This is not currently allowed and r

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article <7abee4bb-b18a-4680-817b-7e76aed40...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, sturlamolden wrote: > >> Precisely. =A0And the kludge does NOT work under all circumstances, >> which is why I said that it doesn't work very well. > >Do you have an example? I gave you one. Also see below. >> Consi

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In comp.lang.fortran n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: (snip) < Precisely. And the kludge does NOT work under all circumstances, < which is why I said that it doesn't work very well. < Consider, for example:

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 20:55, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > Precisely.  And the kludge does NOT work under all circumstances, > which is why I said that it doesn't work very well. Do you have an example? > Consider, for example: > >     SUBROUTINE Fred (X) BIND(C) >     CHARACTER*(*) :: X >     END SUBROUTINE Fr

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article <1j4y84p.v5docbtueccmn%nos...@see.signature>, Richard Maine wrote: > >Only character strings of length 1 are interoperable, as the term >"interoperable" is defined in the Fortran standard. However, that does >not mean that only character strings of length 1 will work with C. The >distin

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

sturlamolden wrote: > You also said we can only interop with > length-1 character strings. My kludge was valid Fortran and works with > strings of any length up to some sane limit that you can specify. There might be a confusion here (and I'm not even sure on whose part) on a picky but important

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 18:20, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >This obviosuly proves you wrong: > > Er, no, it doesn't.  I suggest that you read what I said more > carefully - and the Fortran standard.  As I said, you can kludge > them up, and that is precisely one such kludge - You said we have to kludge them up as ar

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >> I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between >> Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do >> more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported for C >>

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

sturlamolden wrote: > On 24 Aug, 02:57, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > Does anyone use OOP in Fortran anyway? I do - currently for learning (and eventually training) purposes so I don't distribute any of the code. But, the fact that... > Fortran 2003 compilers are not ubiquitou

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 10:24, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <5134d9f1-0e23-4e05-a817-bf0cc9e85...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, > > sturlamolden   wrote: > >On 24 Aug, 02:26, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > >> You missed the word "OOP", which seemed like the whole point. Not that > >> the

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article <5134d9f1-0e23-4e05-a817-bf0cc9e85...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, sturlamolden wrote: >On 24 Aug, 02:26, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > >> You missed the word "OOP", which seemed like the whole point. Not that >> the particular word is used in the Fortran standard, but

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

sturlamolden wrote: > Does anyone use OOP in Fortran anyway? Presumably not many people yet because... > And Fortran 2003 compilers are not ubiquitous. I'd not only agree, I'd say that was quite a bit understated. Last time I checked, the number of Fortran 2003 compilers available on the most

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 02:57, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > Yes, it is no surprise that the C interop stuff fails to address this, > since it isn't in C. Something different/extra would be needed, which is > exactly what Nick said. I'm going to jump out of the middle of this now. > The only re

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 01:59, sturlamolden wrote: > subroutine foobar(cstr) bind(c, name='foobar') >     use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding >     type(c_ptr) :: cstr >     character(*), pointer :: fstr >     call c_f_pointer(cptr, fptr) Actually, this does not work, as it is illegal to create a pointer to a ch

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

sturlamolden wrote: > On 24 Aug, 02:26, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > You missed the word "OOP", which seemed like the whole point. Not that > > the particular word is used in the Fortran standard, but it isn't hard > > to guess that he means a derived type that uses some of

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 02:26, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > You missed the word "OOP", which seemed like the whole point. Not that > the particular word is used in the Fortran standard, but it isn't hard > to guess that he means a derived type that uses some of the OOP > features. Inheritance,

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 01:59, sturlamolden wrote: > subroutine foobar(cstr) bind(c, name='foobar') >     use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding >     type(c_ptr) :: cstr >     character(*), pointer :: fstr >     call c_f_pointer(cptr, fptr) > Which means that you can write a wrapper in Fortran callable from C, tha

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 24 Aug, 00:02, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: >         That's a C language problem -- since a string in C is just an array > of character. The last FORTRAN dialect (and implementation) I used > passed strings On 24 Aug, 00:02, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > values -- FORTRAN strings were typically s

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 23 Aug, 20:42, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > That is precisely what I am investigating.  TR 29113 falls a LONG > way before it gets to any of the OOP data - indeed, you can't even > pass OOP derived types as pure data (without even the functionality) > in its model.  Nor most of what else Python woul

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

In article , JB wrote: >["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.fortran.] Sorry - set back again, because you don't provide an Email address, and there's a significant issue. Thanks for the response. >> 1) Do you want to use character strings of arbitrary length? > >As in, a signed C int (

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.fortran.] On 2009-08-23, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > > I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between > Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do > more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On 23 Aug, 12:35, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between > Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do > more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported for C > interoperability by the current Fortran s

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between > Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do > more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported for C > interoperability by the current Fortran standard. Any sugge

Re: Python/Fortran interoperability

On Aug 23, 6:35 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > I am interested in surveying people who want to interoperate between > Fortran and Python to find out what they would like to be able to do > more conveniently, especially with regard to types not supported for C > interoperability by the current Fortran