FORTRAN 2003: Procedure Pointers doubts

[F2k3]

Hi Paul / Tobias,

> > While this looks interesting, this is not the
right forum 
> to discuss is,
> > comp.lang.fortran will be appropriate.
> >
> > This mailing list is about the development of
gfortran, and 
> sometimes its
> > use.

I understand this. But, as this issue is a major
design constraint for construction of FORTRAN 2003
compliant compiler, so I put the email on this list. I
have already posted the same on comp.lang.fortran
group.

> Also note that this issue is not new, and already
exists in 
> f90. A limited 
> form of function pointers (dummy procedures) is
already available.
> 
> The consensus seems to be that it is OK to pass a
function 
> with an explicit 
> interface as an actual argument for a dummy
procedure with an 
> implicit 
> interface. Obviously the normal restrictions apply,
eg. 
> functions returning 
> arrays or with assumed shape arguments must always
be 
> referenced via an 
> explicit interface.
> 
> I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if the
rules for 
> f2003 function 
> pointers were different.

Thanks Paul for your comments. I too have similar
thougths. 
I put this issue forward, so as to have inputs from
developer community and as well as from the users of
language features.  
>From your input, it seems that you think that the
rules for Procedure pointers with implicit interface,
should be similar as that in case of dummy procedures.

> This does effect compiler design. Where functions
must have 
> an explicit 
> interface we can use special calling conversions. If
a 
> function can be called 
> through an implicit interface we have to be more
careful.

Infact, it has a major impact on compiler design in
case of Procedure pointers with implicit interface, if
it has different rules as compared to that of dummy
procedures.

Thanks and best regards,
F2k3
 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo