[Re: RFC POSIX Fortran Interface]

[Jerry DeLisle]

Walter Spector wrote:
> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> ...
>> Ideally, to me anyway, a user ought to be able to just have "use pxf_interface
>> in their own code and have the compiler just do it without need for a compiler
>> option (an intrinsic module)...
> 
> I would argue against this for two reasons:
> 
> 1.) POSIX-1003.9 was written against Fortran-77, where modules did not exist.
> Therefore we should not require that a module be USEd in order to use the routines.

Yes, agree, I forgot about that.  Needs to be usable for F77 codes.
> 
> 2.) POSIX-1003.9 failed to provide a suggested name for a Fortran-90 module.
> So while a module is extremely useful to help the programmer get the calls right
> (and perhaps use keyword=value argument style), there is no consensus on what
> the correct name for the module should be.  For example, in the Intel compiler,
> Intel supplies a module called IFPOSIX.  On IRIX, Cray, and the Open64 compilers,
> the module is called PXF_DEFINITIONS...  (I should note that in the latter case,
> the library was written by a member of the 1003.9 committee.)

I will take this into consideration.

Thanks, BTW I have many more constants in the list now, a little over 200 and I
have the bsearch working correctly as well.

Jerry