From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

Just figured out that, when the spec says “type-bound procedure”, they mean “method”. And when they say “NOPASS”, that’s their way of saying
“static method”.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On 2/24/2024 4:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

Just figured out that, when the spec says “type-bound procedure”, they mean “method”. And when they say “NOPASS”, that’s their way of saying
“static method”.

I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:48:52 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.

“Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
terminology like “method”.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On 2/25/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:48:52 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

I prefer a more clear description over the typical cryptic language
design. "type-bound procedure" spells it out clearly. Fortran has
always leaned towards greater clarity, less obfuscation.

“Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
terminology like “method”.

LOL, if you understand english, it is quite explicit and clear.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:32:48 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

On 2/25/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

“Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be >> explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
terminology like “method”.

LOL, if you understand english, it is quite explicit and clear.

Note also that both “TYPE” and “CLASS” occur in Fortran, with different
meanings, while methods are normally associated with classes. Just to add
to the confusion ...
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

Le 26/02/2024 à 01:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:32:48 -0600, Gary Scott wrote:

On 2/25/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

“Type-bound procedure” is not a term used anywhere else, and has to be >>> explained. Other languages adding OO features stick to well-known
terminology like “method”.

LOL, if you understand english, it is quite explicit and clear.

Note also that both “TYPE” and “CLASS” occur in Fortran, with different
meanings, while methods are normally associated with classes. Just to add
to the confusion ...

Fortran terminology class/type/type-bound is logical and clear, and I
don't really mind if it differs from other langages. "type-bound
procedure" really tells what it is, much more than "method".
--
"...sois ouvert aux idées des autres pour peu qu'elles aillent dans le
même sens que les tiennes.", ST sur fr.bio.medecine
ST passe le mur du çon : <j3nn2hFmqj7U1@mid.individual.net>
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

"type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than "method".

It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term used by every other OO language out there.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On Fri, 01 Mar 24 12:35:56 +0000, pehache wrote:

Le 01/03/2024 à 02:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

"type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than
"method".

It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term >> used by every other OO language out there.

Fortran is by far not an OO language, it just incorporates *some* OO
features on the top of a procedural language. C++ isn't either, by the
way.

“Procedural” and “object-oriented” are orthogonal concepts: nearly all “object-oriented” languages are also “procedural”.

Languages that introduce new ground-breaking paradigms can justify making
up new terms for them (like “continuation” in Scheme). If you’re just borrowing concepts from other languages, making up your own terms just
makes it look like you are trying to obscure the fact that you’re
borrowing.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

On Fri, 01 Mar 24 21:32:16 +0000, pehache wrote:

That's the point : very few languages fully follow the OOP paradigm
without mixing it with the more classical procedural approach.

The opposite of “procedural” is “functional”.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114