Thomas Orgis wrote:
Am Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:15:53 -0600
OT a bit, so apologies...
Hm, I am already a very "progressive" Fortran user by starting with Fortran 90
and
parts of the Fortran 95 extensions (though, I had to learn that forall loops
are a bad
idea, generally).
Well the forall construct is primarily meant for assignment, not looping in the
traditional Fortran sense.
And even there I learned to stay clear of not thought-out stuff like
subroutines as dummy arguments. Suggesting to folks that one should use Fortran
2003
seriously would get me suspicious looks and the occasional laugh, half stuck in
the
throat. But I feel a frustrated slipping through... so, eh... I better stop.
Yes. :o)
Still, I fail to see a reason for the Fortran 2003 standard not specifying
Fortran/Fortran interoperability. Strange world.
The Fortran standard does not specify things outside the purview of a Fortran program unit
(which has a very specific definition). Interoperability at the .mod, or .o, file level is
not a Fortran *language* issue. It's an implementation detail. I agree it would be nice if
all compilers (of whatever language) everywhere produced compatible output regardless of
vendor or OS... but do you really want the Fortran language standard committee to address
that issue? (Not that they couldn't make a good attempt, they're a sharp lot, but you get
the idea).
cheers,
paulv
