[J3] [EXTERNAL] Re: Limitations of SELECT RANK?

Ondřej Čertík ondrej at certik.us
Tue Oct 20 17:45:07 EDT 2020

Hi Van,

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, at 3:02 PM, Van Snyder via J3 wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 19:23 +0000, Bill Long via J3 wrote:
> > Or, using the proposed template syntax:
> > template subroutine add(b1, b2, b3)  real,intent(inout) :: b1(..)  real,intent(in) :: b2(..)  real,intent(in) :: b3(..)
> >   b1 = b1 + b2 + b3
> > end subroutine add
> If parameterized (or template) modules are done, there's no point to 
> doing parameterized (or template) subroutines.
> Without parameterized (or template) modules, it's not possible to 
> complete integration of parameterized derived types with type-bound 
> procedures. Parameterized (or template) subroutines do not include 
> definitions of related (parameterized) types.

Excellent point about how this integrates with derived types. We need to figure that out.

> If we had done parameterized modules in 2003, we wouldn't have done 
> parameterized types, or at least not parameterized by kind type 
> parameters, and there wouldn't be a problem with integration of types 
> and type-bound procedures.

I don't know yet if parametrized modules is the exact way forward (it is one of the alternatives we are investigating in the generics subgroup: https://github.com/j3-fortran/generics/issues/9), but I 100% agree with the overall sentiment, that we need to have a solid plan how to do generics, before we pass/approve individual features that might or might not work well with the overall generics design.

For that reason I decided to put my efforts in the generics subgroup to help Tom (who leads it) to organize us and to figure out a solid plan for generics for 202Y before our next meeting in February. I think we can do that. And that in turn will allow us to judge these 202X proposals to ensure they are compatible and consistent.


More information about the J3 mailing list