Re: [Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules - part 3/3

[Damian Rouson <damian@sourceryinstitute.org>]

I love this idea and had similar thoughts as well.  

:D 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 24, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mikael,
> 
> It had crossed my mind also that a .mod and a .smod file could be
> written. Normally, the .smod files are produced by the submodules
> themselves, so that their descendants can pick up the symbols that
> they generate. There is no reason at all why this could not be
> implemented; early on in the development I did just this, although I
> think that it would now be easier to modify this patch.
> 
> One huge advantage of proceeding in this way is that any resulting
> library can be distributed with the .mod file alone so that the
> private entities are never exposed. The penalty is that a second file
> is output.
> 
> With best regards
> 
> Paul
> 
>> On 23 July 2015 at 17:42, Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>> 
>> Le 23/07/2015 09:46, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Since all the private entities in a module have to be transmitted to
>>> their descendant submodules, whilst keeping them hidden from normal
>>> use statements, I have chosen to write the module file as usual and
>>> add a second part that contains the private entities. This latter is
>>> only read when processing submodule statements.
>> why not write them to the/a .smod file?  It was its primary purpose, wasn't
>> it?
>> [Sorry, I followed the submodule stuff very remotely].
>> 
>> It's probably bad practice to put private entities in module files, at least
>> now that submodules are supported.  Nevertheless with your change,
>> modifications made to private entities produce recompilation cascades, even
>> though the public interfaces are left unchanged.
>> 
>> Mikael
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
> too dark to read.
> 
> Groucho Marx