Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X response, MODULE vs. INCLUD
Message-ID: <50500034@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 10 Mar 88 02:24:00 GMT
References: <5714@ames.arpa>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:ames.arpa:5714:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500034:000:635
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Mar  9 20:24:00 1988



>I do not consider INCLUDE an adequate replacement for MODULE/USE.  I would not
>object to having INCLUDE in addition to MODULE/USE, but most people seem to
>object to the redundancy inherent in that kind of combination.

>Kurt W. Hirchert      National Center for Supercomputing Applications

There is still a positive need for INCLUDE that is not met by MODULE/USE.
That is inclusion of such things as code fragments and other things which
don't fit the allowed syntax of a module. It is not redundant. INCLUDE
allows ANYTHING in it, even just part of a statement. This is very important
since F8x does not have macros or defines.