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”.

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.

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”.

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.

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 ...

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>

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.

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.

"method" is a terminology that comes from the OOP paradigm, and for
instance in the OOP paradigm there is a conceptual difference between the
"message" and the "method". In practice, the term "method" is wrongly used
in many language to indifferently name a "message" or a (true) "method".
By using its own (and self-descripting) terminology, at least the Fortran
standard doesn't try mimicking in the wrong way a terminology from a
paradigm that it only very partially implements.

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.

Le 01/03/2024 à 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
> 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”.

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

> 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.

Or, this is acknowledging that what was implemented was a rough
approximation of the OOP paradigm, instead of pretending otherwise by
wrongly using the terminology.

Anayway, I find such debate completly pointless.

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”.

In Message-ID: <z09Z-UsRM8hR1xEFAY4qih3XYDg@jntp> pehache:

[Snip...]

> I find such debate completly pointless

+1

IMO, it's sourced largely in 'idle speculation' ...

https://ludwig.guru/s/idle+speculation

Been there, done that, not going back.

YMMV; on the 7th day gawd made slrn scorefiles; yadayada ...

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).