[PATCH, Fortran] PROCEDURE declarations

[Tobias Schlüter]

Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Tobias Schlüter wrote:
>>> +      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 think "not implemented" should be clear enough, isn't it?

We're talking to an international audience with diverse levels of 
knowledge of both English and Fortran, so I'd rather be overly explicit 
to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.

How about "Fortran 2003: procedure pointers at %L are not yet 
implemented in gfortran."?

>> 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/

Not a spectacular enhancement, but indeed something useful.  Thanks for 
the pointer.

>>> +      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?

See above, I just want to preclude any misunderstanding.

>> 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).

Ok, good to know.

Cheers,
- Tobi