[J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Order of statements Table 5.1 and 5.2

[Steven G. Kargl]

Thanks for the clarification.  Pointing out the
recursive nature of Table 5.1 actually was quite
helpful.  Trying to go through the syntax rules
with the table in mind, I was not seeing the trees.

-- 
steve

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 06:18:39PM +0000, Shafran, Aury wrote:
> Both of those examples are valid*. A "separate-module-subprogram" and a "module-subprogram" are both module subprograms, and both of them may have a CONTAINS with internal subprograms. However, those internal subprograms may NOT further contain more internal subprograms, as specified by C1575.
> 
> * Well, there's a few typos, and in the 2nd example "module procedure subroutine s" should just be "module procedure s". But assuming your intent, they're both valid.
> 
> Thanks,
> Aury
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> On Behalf Of Steven G. Kargl via J3
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 2:07 PM
> To: General J3 interest list <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Cc: Steven G. Kargl <kargl at uw.edu>
> Subject: Re: [J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Order of statements Table 5.1 and 5.2
> 
> It could be me that is confused by the syntax rule.
> 
> R1537 indicates a subroutine-subprogram can have a
> internal-subprogram-part.   Then, C1575 states that
> a "An internal subroutine subprogram shall not contain
> an internal-subprogram-part."  Now, if I look at R1408
> and R1541,
> 
> R1408 module-subprogram  is function-subprogram
>                          or subroutine-subprogram
>                          or separate-module-subprogram
> 
> R1541 separate-module-subprogram is mp-subprogram-stmt
>                                     [ specification-part ]
>                                     [ execution-part ]
>                                     [ internal-subprogram-part ]
>                                     end-mp-subprogram-stmt
> So, the distinction is
> 
> module
>   contains
>     subroutine s
>        constains        ! <-- This is not allowed.
>          subroutine t
>          end subroutine t
>     end subroutine s
> end
> 
> but
> 
> module
>   contains
>     module procedure subroutine s
>        constains        ! <-- This is allowed.
>          subroutine t
>          end subroutine t
>     end subroutine s
> end
> 
> -- 
> steve
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:29:42PM +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3 wrote:
> > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but I’m seeing a big “NO” in table 5.2 for CONTAINS with Internal Subprogram?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> on behalf of Steven G. Kargl via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 10:22 AM
> > To: J3 Fortran <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> > Cc: Steven G. Kargl <kargl at uw.edu>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [BULK] [J3] Order of statements Table 5.1 and 5.2
> > Is there a conflict in the Table 5.1 and 5.2? 5.1 suggests that a CONTAINS statement occurs before a module subprogram, and that a CONTAINS cannot appear in a module subprogram. 5.2 indicates that it can. Table 5.1 ------------------------ CONTAINS ------------------------ Internal subprograms module subprograms ------------------------ END statement Should this be ------------------------ CONTAINS ----------------------------------------- Internal subprograms | module subprograms | CONTAINS ------------------------------------------ END statement -- Steve
> 
> -- 
> Steve

-- 
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3950 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20240813/43dee24c/attachment-0001.bin>