This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: gfortran feature request: internal procedures as actual arguments
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:21:25AM -0700, Bill Paxton wrote:
> Hi Steve & Paul,
>
> On Jul 29, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >I could be wrong, but this is prohibited by at least the Fortran
> >2003 standard.
>
> Yup, I know that. It is (imho) the biggest blunder in the design.
> I can only imagine that it was proposed by the Intel folks (since
> they went ahead and implemented it anyway) and rejected by
> others who didn't immediately see how to make it work.
I suppose I could ask Steve Lionel on comp.lang.fortran for the
history of this feature. He'd probably state customers asked
for it.
> BTW: I do have some experience with building software --
> have you ever used PostScript? ; - )
Yes, I've heard of postscript. I'm not sure what it has to
do with the violation of a constraint in an ISO standard.
> On Jul 29, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >If you need threads, I'd suggest you take a look at Dan Nagle's
> >pthread module at http://users.erols.com/dnagle/pub/pthread.f03
> >instead of cramming a (possibly) nonstandard feature into gfortran.
>
> Yup, I know about threads (we were using them back in the 70's
> at Xerox PARC). And as I mentioned in my first email, I can setup
> critical sections and use globals as a less than wonderful work around.
> But it makes it difficult to setup dynamic libraries.
>
> One of the nice things about the fortan standard is that it leaves room
> for compiler builders to be creative and go beyond the basic standard.
> That's what Intel has done in this case, and that's what I'm still
> hoping you will decide to do also.
You can alway file a bugzilla report with an enhancement request.
I doubt anyone will work on this for a very long time because
we're still implementing, and finding and fixing bugs with respect
to the Fortran 95 standard.
--
Steve