>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]> writes:
Richard> Tom Clune writes:
>> Several responders have suggested preserving the F2K syntax,
>> and I'm certainly going to keep that in mind. I've only
>> skimmed the F2K draft thus far, but it is not clear to me just
>> how much of the OO functionality it actually provides. To
>> "extended" objects inherit methods from the parent object, or
>> just the components?
Richard> Both
>> On a more fundamental level, the F2K standard leaves modules
>> and derived types relatively decoupled, whereas my idea was to
>> force OO design by strongly coupling modules and derived types
>> via "classes".
Richard> That would be a quite radical difference. I'm not going
Richard> to try to argue pro or con. (I have opinions on it, but
Richard> I don't have the time for such a discussion). I'll just
Richard> note that it would be a pretty radical difference.
A agree that there is a radical difference. For general programming
the extra flexibility of having modules and derived types only
loosely coupled is quite nice. However, in the case of the
framework, the motivation is somewhat different. For a framework,
one purposefully and carefully constrains the users of the framework
to interact in specified manners. Powers that are beyond myself
are likely to dictate that the framework should be OO, and from my
limited experience that would imply a style in which modules and
derived types are strongly coupled to behave as a "class".
I'd be more than happy to reclassify a "class" to mean a derived-type
together with its type-bound procedures, but fortran modules seems to
be a fairly natural encapsulation of that structure.
Cheers,
- Tom
Richard> -- Richard Maine [log in to unmask]
--
--
Thomas Clune, Ph.D. Parallel Applications Consultant
SGI [log in to unmask]
Code 931 NASA GSFC 301-286-4635 (work)
Greenbelt, MD 20771 301-286-1634 (fax)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
