Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclcdb!cdb From: cdb@hpclcdb.HP.COM (Carl Burch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Re: F8X response, MODULE vs. INCLUDE, ALLOCATE Message-ID: <6690013@hpclcdb.HP.COM> Date: 8 Mar 88 20:15:55 GMT References: <1112@ut-emx.UUCP> Organization: HP ITG/ISO Computer Language Lab Lines: 23 > 3) MODULE would inhibit independent compilation -- a BIG no-no in my world. You might note that INCLUDE is also dependent compilation - it's just uncheckable dependent compilation. With MODULEs, the revision date can be checked by the compiler between the source and the preprocessed module to ensure that your compilation is consistent. As for X3J3 only standardizing "existing practice", that's equivalent to saying that only vendors should be allowed to do language design. One of the reasons that the draft standard is so ambitious is that many users were disappointed with the generally conservative '77 standard (produced by a committee composed largely of vendors) and joined the committee with the general intent of getting a modernization of Fortran that their vendors seemed unwilling to give them. As I work for a vendor on the compiler team, I get my say in the process either way - but I wonder if those that are expounding that point of view really think that their vendors always know best ? Carl Burch HP Fortran Team Usual disclaimer - HP expresses its degree of agreement with my views only on payday.