From J.L.Schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk Fri Nov 10 15:23:24 1995 Received: from mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk (pp@mail.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.84]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA16293 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:23:13 +0100 Received: from pop.liv.ac.uk by mail.liv.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:46:59 +0000 Received: from jlspc.liv.ac.uk (jlspc.liv.ac.uk [138.253.102.118]) by pop.liv.ac.uk (8.6.12/8.6.6-ajt-2) with SMTP id NAA17012; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:19:51 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:19:48 GMT From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.934) USE statements, continuing confusions To: Richard Maine cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Message-ID: Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:04:31 +0800 Richard Maine wrote: > From: Richard Maine > Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:04:31 +0800 > Subject: (SC22WG5.934) USE statements, continuing confusions > To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk > > > Dave says: > > > It's also not clear that this capability adds anything in the way of > > useful functionality. > > > > -> from all of which I draw the conclusion that making this change > > would be unlikely to affect lots of users! > > One clear functionality is the ability to give two local names to a > single name imported from a module. I don't recall whether I happen > to use that, but it is certainly a functionality that you'd loose. > > Also, there is one thing in this general area that is used *A LOT*. > I personally use it extensively, and I think many other people that > use modules also do. > > Namely: Let something be defined in module A; perhaps a derived type, > though it doesn't really matter what. Then let module B USE module A > and also declare some other things; perhaps it declares some variables > of the derived type. Module B also "exports" the type that it "imported" > from module A. Now the main program USEs both module A and > module B - no complicated renames or onlys, just simple USE > statements. This imports the derived type name twice, once directly > from A and once indirectly from B. I won't try to present the > argument why I think this is a reasonable way to do things - I'll just > point out that it is currently a legal way and one that is widely > used. I guarantee that you will break lots of code if you make this > illegal; it would certainly break all of my f90 code. Ditto for me. All of my code would break. I dont see that there is any problem. Only one entity is accessed. It is just that there are two routes whereby it becomes visible in the using program, so what! > > -- > Richard Maine > maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov > -- Dr.J.L.Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. The University of Liverpool, UK e-mail J.L.Schonfelder@liv.ac.uk phone: +44(151)794-3716 fax: +44(151)794-3759