Forgive me if this is a duplicate, but in my previous attempt to
respond I think I omitted the list from the addressees.
On May 14, 4:02pm, Richard Maine wrote:
> Subject: Re: Generic disambiguation using procedures
...
> As currently specified, the user-assigned type name has no meaning in
> itself. It is just a shorthand for the specified interface.
I agree so far.
> Agreement of type name is not important - only agreement of the
> characteristics represented by the name.
>
> This makes the name unsuitable for disambiguation
...
Here I disagree, especially with the last sentence. For one thing,
it's not in the spirit of the way disambiguation is done for
derived types in F90.
In F90, one can do the following:
TYPE :: type1
INTEGER i
END TYPE
TYPE :: type2
INTEGER i
END TYPE
Yet type1 and type2 can be used for disambiguation in generic
functions. For derived types it has never been the underlying
characteristics (the content of the data structure) but purely
the type name that is the basis of disambiguation, as I understand
it -- please correct me if I'm wrong. This is, IMHO, the right
way to go.
For procedures, we need do nothing more, and should do nothing
less.
-P.
--
*********** How can we have ethnic music without ethnic hatred? ***********
* Peter S. Shenkin; Chemistry, Columbia U.; 3000 Broadway, Mail Code 3153 *
** NY, NY 10027; [log in to unmask]; (212)854-5143; FAX: 678-9039 ***
*MacroModel WWW page: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/mmod/mmod.html *
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|