Re: Type extension and renamed parent type

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:00:22 -0700 (PDT), paul.richard.thomas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 28, 7:05 am, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Maine) wrote:
>> Ron Ford <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I'm curious what motivates the question.
>>
>> From reading the OP's replies in the thread, it seems fairly evident to
>> me that a motivation of the question was to make the compiler comply
>> with the standard... which seems a good goal in my view.
>>
> 
> Indeed!  Last night, I submitted a patch to the gfortran list for
> derived type extension that complies with our interpretation of the
> standard.  Your confirmation of our understanding encouraged us to
> ignore the other products.
> 
> The implementation of derived type extension is the first step towards
> cl***** and OOP.

The usage of 'my' reminds strongly of perl, where it indicates lexical
scope.  Perl and ruby seem to have OO built in from the git-go.

# floats
my $x_calc = 5.3;
my $x_sought = 7.321928094887362;
my $base = .1;
my $term = -.00057;
my $penultimate = -.00057;

# ints
my $power = 1;

These declarations look doubly-funny here with the $ as well.  A C
compiler
is within its rights to spit that out forthwith.

-- 
Wealth - any income that is at least one hundred dollars more a year than
the income of one's wife's sister's husband. 6
H. L. Mencken