Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!ut-emx!reeder
From: reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X response, MODULE vs. INCLUD
Message-ID: <1180@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 11 Mar 88 17:46:47 GMT
References: <5714@ames.arpa> <50500031@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Texas Computation Center
Lines: 27

In article <50500031@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> I do not consider INCLUDE an adequate replacement for MODULE/USE.  I would not

I think you have it backwards, lots of compilers *already* have INCLUDE,
none (that I know of) have MODULE/USE.  Therefore, MODULE/USE would be 
replacing INCLUDE.

Now tell me that DEC and CRAY and all those other compiler vendors are 
going to delete INCLUDE from their next versions of the compilers.

Also, since the MODULE name is not a filename, how do you (in a standard
way, of course) tell the compiler where to find the file containing the 
MODULE?  (I remember a reply to a letter ballot where it was claimed that
non-standardization of filenames was one thing that prohibited INCLUDE
from being standardized.  Of course that argument didn't stop the OPEN
statements from being included in the standard with the FILE= clause.)

I will concede your point about compilation time.  But I don't think any
of the "benefits" of MODULE justify using it instead of INCLUDE.

> Kurt W. Hirchert      National Center for Supercomputing Applications

-- 
William {Wills,Card,Weekly,Virtual} Reeder	reeder@emx.utexas.edu
The Looniversity of TexMex at Autism, Consternation Central, Austin TX 78712 

DISCLAIMER:	I speak only for myself, and usually only to myself.