Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclcdb!cdb
From: cdb@hpclcdb.HP.COM (Carl Burch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Re: F8X: MODULE vs. INCLUDE
Message-ID: <6690014@hpclcdb.HP.COM>
Date: 11 Mar 88 21:01:24 GMT
References: <1167@ut-emx.UUCP>
Organization: HP ITG/ISO Computer Language Lab
Lines: 25


I'm sorry, I could have been a great deal clearer.  My point is that the
"dependency" on previously compiled MODULEs is the same as that of 
INCLUDE files with the addition of one more check - that the source code
of the module has not been modified since the module was compiled.  In
the implementations of modules with which I am familar (HP Modcal, Turbo
Pascal Release 4.0), the compiled form of the module resides in a separate 
file from the source, so the regular file system modification dates provide 
the information to ensure that the compiled form is not out of date relative 
to the source code of the MODULE.  With that one additional check, the 
dependencies introduced by USE are exactly those of INCLUDE.

As for vendors doing the language design, let me refer you to what HP calls 
the "next bench" syndrome - the best way to design a tool (instrument, 
compiler, etc.) is to use it yourself and provide it to the guy at the
next bench over in the lab.  This works fine - but how many Fortran compilers
do you know that self-compile?  Not many any more, that has all but went
out of style.  There are other reasons to doubt that language design should
be left to vendors, but they delve into the realm of Marketing - which I have
sworn off (with other sins) for Lent.

I hope that helps to clarify my previous response.

							Carl Burch
							HP Fortran