This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Tobias Schlüter wrote:I think "not implemented" should be clear enough, isn't it?+ gfc_error ("Procedure pointers used at %L are " + "not yet implemented", where);The wording should make very explicit that this is a compiler deficiency, maybe use "sorry"?
I also feel that this is an omission that limits the usefulness of this language feature by quite a lot, but I only started reading about F2K's features, so I may be misestimating.Well, the idea was to have PROCEDURE without pointer first and implement procedure pointer next. (Janus is already working on this.)
But PROCEDURE by itself is already useful; see e.g. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/4d51d6ca89f7d4f8/
+ gfc_error ("Intrinsic procedure '%s' not yet supported " + "in PROCEDURE statement at %C", proc_if->name);Again, make clear that this is a compiler deficiency. People may wonder if "not yet supported" may mean "at a later point in the program, this would work".
Would be "not yet implemented" better?
Once Tobias B believes the language support is complete, I don't doubt that it will be ok from my POV.I think PROCEDURE is complete except of the known TODOs: (a) "Inheriting" the interface from intrinsic procedures, (b) procedure pointers and (c) PROCEDURE in/as type-bound procedure. At least I could not find anymore find a test program which is mishandled.
Of these, (b) is planned for the near future; Janus also planned to look at (c).
Cheers, - Tobi
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |