1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.LANG.FORTRAN

  • =?UTF-8?B?4oCcVHlwZS1Cb3VuZCBQcm9jZWR1cmXigJ0=?=

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 24 22:31:20 2024
    Just figured out that, when the spec says “type-bound procedure”, they
    mean “method”. And when they say “NOPASS”, that’s their way of saying “static method”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Scott@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Sun Feb 25 08:48:52 2024
    On 2/24/2024 4:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    Just figured out that, when the spec says “type-bound procedure”, they mean “method”. And when they say “NOPASS”, that’s their way of saying
    “static method”.

    I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
    design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
    always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Gary Scott on Sun Feb 25 20:23:24 2024
    On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:48:52 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

    I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
    design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
    always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.

    “Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
    terminology like “method”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Scott@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Sun Feb 25 17:32:48 2024
    On 2/25/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:48:52 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

    I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
    design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
    always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.

    “Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
    terminology like “method”.
    LOL, if you understand english, it is quite explicit and clear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Gary Scott on Mon Feb 26 00:17:16 2024
    On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:32:48 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

    On 2/25/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    “Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be >> explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
    terminology like “method”.

    LOL, if you understand english, it is quite explicit and clear.

    Note also that both “TYPE” and “CLASS” occur in Fortran, with different meanings, while methods are normally associated with classes. Just to add
    to the confusion ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to pehache on Fri Mar 1 01:51:15 2024
    On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

    "type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than "method".

    It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term
    used by every other OO language out there.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to pehache on Fri Mar 1 20:57:44 2024
    On Fri, 01 Mar 24 12:35:56 +0000, pehache wrote:

    Le 01/03/2024 à 02:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

    On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

    "type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than
    "method".

    It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term >> used by every other OO language out there.

    Fortran is by far not an OO language, it just incorporates *some* OO
    features on the top of a procedural language. C++ isn't either, by the
    way.

    “Procedural” and “object-oriented” are orthogonal concepts: nearly all “object-oriented” languages are also “procedural”.

    Languages that introduce new ground-breaking paradigms can justify making
    up new terms for them (like “continuation” in Scheme). If you’re just borrowing concepts from other languages, making up your own terms just
    makes it look like you are trying to obscure the fact that you’re
    borrowing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to pehache on Fri Mar 1 22:15:49 2024
    On Fri, 01 Mar 24 21:32:16 +0000, pehache wrote:

    That's the point : very few languages fully follow the OOP paradigm
    without mixing it with the more classical procedural approach.

    The opposite of “procedural” is “functional”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)