Do I understand that to mean you don't want any such patches then? I haven't worked in FORTRAN in years...used to work in FORTRAN IV a lot...so at least this prompted me to learn a bit about FORTRAN 90.
RRR Mike W9MDB On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Joe Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike -- > > A brief addendum to Bill's comments. > > Fortran90-style modules are always a good idea. We have been moving > (slowly, over time) in the direction of using them more in this code. > > However... > > Development of algorithms often proceeds most effectively with some > quick-and-dirty shortcuts -- especially when just one person (or a small > number working closely together) are working on the code. > > WSJT and its sister programs contain many such shortcuts. Much of the > code would not yet be finished and working if everything had to be "done > right" before it coule be used. > > Sometimes "Best" can be the enemy of "Good Enough". > > -- Joe, K1JT > > On 12/17/2015 1:52 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: > > On 17/12/2015 18:35, Michael Black wrote: > >> This patch is a beginning to help catch some errors like the 6286 > >> patch fixed in decoder.f90 where some arguments were missing from the > call > >> > >> With this patch and added file that would've caused an error during > >> compilation. > >> > >> Seems to me this might a worthwhile effort to minimize bugaboos like > that. > >> > >> Comments? > > Hi Mike, > > > > yes indded but it is better to have the interface in the implementation > > file and put the implementation of the procedure(s) in a contains > section. > > > > If you start creating separate module files it will get out of hand very > > quickly. The idea of the Fortran module, in C/C++ terminology, is that > > it is both the header and the implementation are in one file. A bit like > > Java. > > > > BTW our Fortran compilers are Fortran 2003 compliant (and a lot of 2005) > > so you should start with that language really. > > > > I am about to check in a whole bunch of structural changes to the > > decoder stuff so hang on a bit please. > > > > 73 > > Bill > > G4WJS. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > wsjt-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
