 |
 |
James Giles wrote: > [log in to unmask] wrote: > ... > > The only proposal I've seen is the one that's generic (or parametric) > > w.r.t. values. When I see one that's generic w.r.t. values, types, > > procedures and packages, including both parameterized packages > > and instances of them, I will study it carefully. > > Is "package" a term defined in Fortran? I can't find it. Do you > mean MODULE? I used "package" as a non-prejudicial term to refer to both my and Aleks's proposals. In my proposal it means module, in Aleks's it means a new program unit, spelling TBD. > As for the other stuff, yes it's fairly easy to generalize inferred constants > to handle all of that. I've given examples of some of these in the past. "Some" apparently so far doesn't include "all." Until I actually see it worked out, I'll be skeptical about the "fairly easy to generalize" part. > Aleks seem to feel that any proposal without explicit grammar productions > is incomplete and needn't be considered. Unfortunately, I believe that > syntax is among the most important of a language's feartures and believe > further that it must, as a consequence, be the *last* part of a feature > designed. My major objection to both your and Aleks' proposals is > the cumbersome nature of the syntax. Syntax simplification is fine, so long as you don't simplify away all of the necessary/desired functionality. At least in this case, we needn't worry about simplifying away the runtime performance too. I'm still skeptical about the desirability of the processor keeping a database of instances. If you have a system-wide database, I can see changing one jot or tittle triggering a compilation that may take weeks. -- Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe [log in to unmask] | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.