- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Dear all,
I recently played around with the new submodule capabilities in PSXE2016 and some questions arose.
The first one is a question of experience of other users: Do you take advantage of the procedure definition (example foo) or do you repeat the interface in the submodule (example bar)? I find it difficult to decide which one I should use.
The second is more a feature request. Staying at modules the "go to definition" works well and is really helpful. This does not work in any way with submodules (VS2015 sp1, PSXE2016 update 2, example code shows that it does not work). Please, Intel, enhance the VS2015 integration.
The third one is a question whether it makes sense to allow either 'end procedure foo' or alternatively 'end subroutine foo' within the submodule smod_test. The other way round the compiler gives an error ('end subroutine bar' vs. 'end procedure bar').
Here is the example code (4 different files):
submodule (mod_test) smod_test contains ! this version is without repeating the interface module procedure foo implicit none d = real(i*j*k,rk) return !end subroutine foo ! -> this does work too, but does it make sense? end procedure foo ! this version repeats the interface module subroutine bar(i, j, k, d) use mod_parameter implicit none integer(ik), intent(in ) :: i, j, k real(rk) , intent(out) :: d d = real(i*j*k,rk) return end subroutine bar !end procedure bar ! -> this does not work end submodule module mod_parameter use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV, only : ik => int32 use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV, only : rk => real64 implicit none private public :: ik, rk end module mod_parameter module mod_test use mod_parameter implicit none private public :: foo, bar interface module subroutine foo(i, j, k, d) implicit none integer(ik), intent(in ) :: i, j, k real(rk) , intent(out) :: d end subroutine foo module subroutine bar(i, j, k, d) use mod_parameter implicit none integer(ik), intent(in ) :: i, j, k real(rk) , intent(out) :: d end subroutine bar end interface end module mod_test program submodule_test2 use mod_parameter use mod_test implicit none integer(ik) :: i, j, k real (rk) :: d ! ---------------------------------------------- i = 2 j = 5 k = 3 call foo(i,j,k,d) write(*,'(1ES18.4)') d call bar(i,j,k,d) write(*,'(1ES18.4)') d end program submodule_test2
Any comment is highly welcome, Johannes
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
It's a compiler bug that it allows "end subroutine" to match "module procedure". We're fixing that.
I will let the developers know about the Go To Definition issue.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Johannes wrote:
.. The first one is a question of experience of other users: Do you take advantage of the procedure definition (example foo) or do you repeat the interface in the submodule (example bar)? I find it difficult to decide which one I should use. ..
The good doctor perhaps presumed you've read his bog: if not, see it here: https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2015/07/07/doctor-fortran-in-we-all-live-in-a-yellow-submodule
I prefer to repeat the interface in the submodule.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Dear Steve, dear FortranFan,
thanks for the replies.
@Steve: Thanks for addressing the Go To Definition issue to the developers.
@FortranFan: Yes, I've read Steve's thread regrading submodules (more than once... ;-) ) and I agree that it seems to be a matter of taste or if you want to drive code maintainers into madness (including me myself in a year or two...). I tend like you to repeat the interface, but maybe there is some reason not do this... Too many choices makes it sometimes not easier.
Best regards, Johannes
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
My view is that it is strictly a matter of personal preference, and may largely depend on how you've programmed in the past. You can always add comments.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Having separate visual options "Go To Definition" and "Go To Declaration" like c++ does might help swing the argument for not repeating the argument list.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I've just started using submodules and after consultation agreed that repeating the declaration will make code maintenance easier so that's what we'll be doing. If there is a mismatch the error message is unnecessarily obscure
BTW I don't know why I've started getting 'name withheld' on my posts. I never used to and I've never asked for it, moreover I can't figure out how to stop it - there doesn't seem to be any option to not withhold my name. Does anyone know how to do this?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
It has to do with a privacy issue. The solution is to go to your profile and explicitly set the display name. There was a thread some time ago on the matter. Don't remember when, though.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thanks. The problem was that the display name was my email address and that is no longer allowed.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thanks for the answers. It seems that the most users prefer to repeat the interface definition and I think this is a good option for me too, since the change in the code from normal subroutine to a submodule contained subroutine is very small.
From the post of Andrew I assume that "Go To Definition" and "Go To Declaration" would distinguish between the interface in the parent module and the repetition in the submodule? Where would a pure "Go To Definition" go to in the case of repetition? Into the submodule or the parent module?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I would expect Go To Declaration to go to the interface in the module and Go To Definition to go to the actual procedure. That probably is what it does in C++.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi Steve, thanks for the explanation. Do you think the development team will/ can implement both features ("Go To Definition" and "Go To Declaration") in future for Fortran?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I will submit a feature request. The team is pretty good about such things but I can't make any promises.
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page