[J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Re: Consistency in conversion functions

[Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)]

Fair point.    Indeed, an argument could be made that the default for any new intrinsic procedure would be to place them in some existing (or new) intrinsic module so that the namespace is a bit more manageable.    Unfortunately, this would conflict with existing style of most intrinsics.

Hmm.  Maybe a new “default” instrinsic module  ISO_FORTRAN_INTRINSICS  which has all the existing intrinsics but is also where all new ones go (unless they belong to one of the others)?   To get the new ones you have to go there, and you can go there for the older ones if you want to be pedantic.



From: Van Snyder <van.snyder at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 2:59 PM
To: j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
Cc: "Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)" <thomas.l.clune at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Re: Consistency in conversion functions

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA.  Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.  Use the "Report Message" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC.


On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 16:13 +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3 wrote:

I would not be opposed to the additional intrinsics suggested here, but I’m sure it would be rather far down my list of priorities.

Every new intrinsic procedure inserts a new opportunity for conflict with existing codes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230404/a1240042/attachment.htm>