Instead of

>type::point
>     real ::x,y,z
> end type point
> type :: event
>     real:: x,y,z,t
> end type event

why not write

type::point
     real ::x,y,z
 end type point
type :: event
     type (point):: location
                real::t
end type event

Gene Wheeler
Herff Professor of Structural Mechanics
Civil Engineering Department
The University of Memphis
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Giampaolo Bottoni <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: template instruction


> Semplicity versus Power
>
> The f2k PDF draft is a book of more than 400 pages!  :-(
>
> Using template:
>
> type::point
>     real ::x,y,z
> end type point
> type :: event
>     real:: x,y,z,t
> end type event
>
> type(event)::bigbang
>
> subroutine rotation(p)
>    template(point)::p    !!! Hic sunt leones (old Latin
maxim)
>    ...
> end subroutine rotation
>
> call rotation(bigbang)  !!! CORRECT,RIGHT !!!
>
> Please, may you briefly explain to me (and, why not, to
all the
> [log in to unmask] members) how can I obtain
> the same effect using the new and powerful object
> oriented f2k instructions ?
>
> The type event must be of necessity an extension
> of the type point ?
>
> Thank you
>
>        G.Bottoni
>
>
> In 10.29 04/12/00 -0700, hai scritto:
> >Giampaolo Bottoni <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >...
> >>To A.J.Giles <[log in to unmask]>
> >>
> >>The TEMPLATE instruction purpose is not the replacement
> >>of the OOP instructions but the proposal of some new
ways.
> >>If a function performing the rotation of the three
components
> >>Point%x, Point%y Point%z is available, why
> >>I can't use that function for ALL the objects with
> >>the three conponents x, y and z ?
> >
> >Nothing is wrong with that desire except that other, more
> >powerful (and convenient) language features could
accomplish
> >the same functionality.  I sse no reason to clutter up
the language
> >with something so inflexible.
> >
> >The OOP feartures can accomplish what you want, and they
> >will be in FMMV.  It is unlikely that anyone will support
a
> >feature which adds no new capabilities after that.  Some
form
> >of parametric polymorphism would be a better proposal,
> >whether the language already has OOP or not.
> >
> >---
> >
> >Note: I selected "reply to author", so this message is
going
> >to the whole list.  :-(
> >
> >--
> >J. Giles
> >