Re: compilation problem with module function interface definition

Richard E Maine wrote:
> In article <C_Vbe.8636$XF3.3420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Phony Account <phaccount@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
>> This could be dealt
>> with with a more obscure invocation of the function which would
>> also specify the desired result type. But that is a completely
>> different thread.
>
> I've seen procedures (even subroutines) implemented like that -
> where there is an argument whose sole purpose is disambiguation.
> Sometimes its value isn't even used - all that matters is its type.
> I'm not personally very fond of the style in general, but I've seen
> it done. (The Fortran standard even has a few cases).

There's even a proposal for INTENT(UNUSED) to explicitly
describe such arguments.

--
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare


.