AW: [Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules - part 3/3

[Bader, Reinhold]

Hello Toon, all else, 

a bit unfortunate, in my opinion (I was present at the discussion). 
I've in the meantime taken some effort to implement what the design pattern 
experts might call an "abstract factory with full dependency inversion" as 
a bare-bones framework and have attached an archive with three variants:

* pre_interp contains the code that is presently valid (and indeed compiles fine
   with both gfortran and ifort), but would become invalid due to indirect
   parent module access
* post_interp contains a variant that uses a helper module (mod_glue) to avoid
   the indirect ancestor use access (if there is a more concise way to do this, 
   I'd like to know ... up to now this is the best I can do)
* post_interp_v2 another shorter variant that pushes the extension types into a submodule
   (with the disadvantage that these types are not really reusable, and
    that the monster module problem is shifted to a monster submodule, or a chain of
    submodules)
You may need to edit the Makefiles to build. 

I would of course like to know how people feel about reintroducing this restriction, 
especially since the only reason given was that ancestor module access and its
use association overriding host association would confuse users ... which is a 
problem which in my opinion could have been dealt with in a slightly different
manner without removing the  permission for indirect parent module-referencing 
use statements. It is not clear to me whether *implementations* other than 
gfortran have problems with this, though.

More germane to this thread's discussion actually is another interp that was also passed, 
and which appears entirely uncontroversial:
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/207/15-209.txt 
It seems to me that this would permit avoiding generation of the .smod files for
modules that do not specify an separate module procedure interface.

Cheers
Reinhold
 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> 
> Although I do not immediately know if this is relevant for *this*
> debate, J3 passed the following (attached) interpretation on submodules
> the past week (it still has to go to several mail ballots, but still),
> overwhelmingly prefering option 3:
> 
> [attached]
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> --
> Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
> At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
> Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: examples.tgz
Type: application/x-compressed
Size: 1631 bytes
Desc: examples.tgz
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/attachments/20150810/89ffb556/attachment.bin>