----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> dbb0bbb0
@REPLY:
<258c15c6-7463-4d80-8326-0016c5a4ff1an@googlegroups.com> c81f91c0
@REPLYADDR Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Gary Scott
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@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>
<258c15c6-7463-4d80-8326-0016c5a4ff1an@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0500
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/29/2023 6:19 PM, gah4 wrote:
> 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++.
Isn`t a single derived type an "OO" concept? I`m still not a fan of
derived types for procedure arguments (e.g. the win32 API...yuck). I
use the extensively for internal "global/common" purposes though.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (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