Prev: Preventing file sharing
Next: EXTERNAL statement for subroutines: is it ever needed?
From: Richard Maine on 17 Apr 2008 04:29
Dieter Britz <britz(a)chem.au.dk> wrote:

> I can be a pedant as well as the next man (or woman). I should perhaps
> have written "Interface" rather than "interface", but the word itself,
> I believe, specifies what I meant, because that is what one types into
> the code, just as one types in "subroutine" and calls that a subroutine,
> not a subroutine block. Sorry to belabour this, but you excited my
> pedantic streak there.

Well, then I'm going to disagree with you. The standard has a term for
what you type into the code. That term is "interface body". The standard
also has a term "interface". The two are not the same. If you use one
where the other is meant, you *WILL* cause confusion. I guarantee it. I
have helped people who had exactly that confusion from exactly that
usage and wrote incorrect code as a result - many times. My experience
with having to help such users is why I'm so picky about this particular
bit of terminology.

As a picky aside, the standard also has a term for what you type that
begins with "subroutine". That term is not just "subroutine", but
instead is "subroutine subprogram". The subprogram is the code that you
type. The subroutine is the thing that is defined by the code. However,
this distinction is rarely a cause of confusion, so it doesn't tend to
be worth harping much on. Only in cases such as ENTRY statements, where
one subprogram can define multiple subroutines does the distinction
become wothy of note. I mention it only because you brought it up.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Preventing file sharing
Next: EXTERNAL statement for subroutines: is it ever needed?