----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<258c15c6-7463-4d80-8326-0016c5a4ff1an@googlegroups.com> c81f91c0
@REPLY:
<ee5025c7-3121-4e6d-87a9-f54452f1c145n@googlegroups.com> 5d000181
@REPLYADDR gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 gah4
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<5fbb8dcc-d5b9-45a4-9d4f-23caeebc0778n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<9b605c0b-c8a1-40eb-a73f-428377f906a5n@googlegroups.com> <ee5025c7-3121-4e6d-87a9-f54452f1c145n@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<258c15c6-7463-4d80-8326-0016c5a4ff1an@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-7, Arjen Markus wrote:
(snip)
> The interface would have to use the `extern "C"` construction, so
any C++ routine
> (function) to be called has to follow the C conventions.
> Other than that (and the limitations that puts on the
interfacing), yes, I would say so.
There has been very little discussion here on OO Fortran.
If one asks about C++, do we assume that they mean the OO features?
I did used to know people who wrote OO code in Fortran IV, (possibly using
extensions to Fortran 66). I didn`t know about OO at the time, though.
It is then possible to write OO code in C, though with a little extra work that
you don`t need to do with C++.
I suspect you could hand translate small amounts of OO C++ code to OO Fortran.
That should probably be done to better understand how OO Fortran works.
But larger amounts would be a lot of work!
As well as I know it, any maybe not all that well, the features don`t all
directly translate.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441