From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp03.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.125]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 120EB386482B for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:34:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 120EB386482B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orange.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orange.fr Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([92.167.144.168]) by mwinf5d06 with ME id dWZv250023eCq5G03Wa0rd; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 20:34:00 +0200 X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.17] X-ME-Auth: bW9yaW4tbWlrYWVsQG9yYW5nZS5mcg== X-ME-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 20:34:00 +0200 X-ME-IP: 92.167.144.168 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] fortran: new abstract class gfc_dummy_arg To: Thomas Koenig , Mikael Morin , fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20210803153945.1309734-1-mikael@gcc.gnu.org> <20210803153945.1309734-2-mikael@gcc.gnu.org> From: Mikael Morin Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:33:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:34:03 -0000 Le 04/08/2021 à 09:05, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > So far, we have refrained from adding too much explicit C++-isms into > the code, and if we do, my participation at least will have to be > reduced sharply (I don't speak much C++, and I don't intend to learn). > > So, is this a path we want to go down? > I’m not a C++ fanboy, but I think that avoiding it at all price would be a mistake. Even fortran has support for typebound procedures. It’s not an obscure feature. Of course my (lack of) recent activity makes my voice very weak for any decision regarding the future of the project. Now regarding these patches, I can propose dropping patches 1-5 completely. I don’t want to rewrite it with unions and the like. Patch 7 would need some adjustments, but I promised to do it for backport anyway. Does that work? Mikael