(j3.2006) NAME= for internal procs

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Wednesday 10 January 2007 08:02, Richard E Maine wrote:

> The existing rules look to me to work fine and be sensible. ?
And the existing rule is that there is nothing special about PRIVATE module 
procedures in regards to binding labels?

We had long discussions about this on this list, and Bill may remember the 
outcome. The question we discussed was whether private module procedures 
should be allowed to have a binding label. I had thought, but it seems I am 
wrong, that we decided not to allow them to have binding labels.

> My personal inclination would be that if internal procedures are ?
> allowed to be interoperable, they should be like module procedures in ?
> this regard, not requiring the NAME=.
Internal procedures must NOT be allowed to have binding labels. This is 
clearly spelled in the paper---it simply cannot be implemented. There may be 
multiple "active" instances of the same internal proc so obviously they 
cannot all have the same binding label.

So there are two choices:
1) Not allow NAME= and say there is no binding labels, as we do for abstract 
interfaces and dummy procedures. This is what Malcolm prefers.
2) Require NAME="" to explicitly specify there is no binding label. I proposed 
this (and J3 voted yes) because I thought this was what we did for private 
module procedures. But if there is no precedent to do this now I agree we 
should just go along with Malcolm's preference.

Thanks,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ LLNL
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816  Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Web: http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/donev