> In my finite element program, I want the Load, Element ..... are
> defined by list type. If there is a generic list type can be defined
> by Fortran 95, it will be convenience. Then, it can be difine:
> Type(list) :: Load
> Type(list) :: Element
>
> ....
> call add(Load, i)
> call add(Element, i)
>
> ...
>
> A generic list type wtih its relative subroutines is easy to use.
>
> Must I only define Load list, Element list ..... and their subroutines
> individually?

> On Jan 21, 5:29 pm, Simulate gmail.com> wrote:

>> In my finite element program, I want the Load, Element ..... are
>> defined by list type. If there is a generic list type can be defined
>> by Fortran 95, it will be convenience. Then, it can be difine:
>> Type(list) :: Load
>> Type(list) :: Element
>>
>> ....
>> call add(Load, i)
>> call add(Element, i)
>>
>> ...
>>
>> A generic list type wtih its relative subroutines is easy to use.
>>
>> Must I only define Load list, Element list ..... and their
>> subroutines individually?

>
> ...

> In my finite element program, I want the Load, Element ..... are
> defined by list type. If there is a generic list type can be defined
> by Fortran 95, it will be convenience. Then, it can be difine:
> Type(list) :: Load
> Type(list) :: Element
>
> ....
> call add(Load, i)
> call add(Element, i)
>
> ...
>
> A generic list type wtih its relative subroutines is easy to use.
>
> Must I only define Load list, Element list ..... and their subroutines
> individually?

> Damian wrote:

>> On Jan 21, 5:29 pm, Simulate gmail.com> wrote:

>>> In my finite element program, I want the Load, Element ..... are
>>> defined by list type. If there is a generic list type can be defined
>>> by Fortran 95, it will be convenience. Then, it can be difine:
>>> Type(list) :: Load
>>> Type(list) :: Element

>

>>> ....
>>> call add(Load, i)
>>> call add(Element, i)

>

>>> ...

>

>>> A generic list type wtih its relative subroutines is easy to use.

>

>>> Must I only define Load list, Element list ..... and their
>>> subroutines individually? ...

> On Jan 22, 11:12 am, "James Giles" worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>

>> Damian wrote:

>>> On Jan 21, 5:29 pm, Simulate gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> In my finite element program, I want the Load, Element ..... are
>>>> defined by list type. If there is a generic list type can be defined
>>>> by Fortran 95, it will be convenience. Then, it can be difine:
>>>> Type(list) :: Load
>>>> Type(list) :: Element

>

>>>> ....
>>>> call add(Load, i)
>>>> call add(Element, i)

>

>>>> ...

> ...

> On Jan 22, 11:12 am, "James Giles" worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:

>> Damian wrote:

>>> I'm guessing this will be a lot easier once more compilers support
>>> Fortran 2003, at which point you'll be able to use unlimited
>>> polymorphic entities [class(*)]. If you happen to be using the IBM
>>> XL Fortran compiler (or possibly the NAG compiler), you can take
>>> advantage of that feature now.

>>
>> Be aware that such is a very primitive capability. [...]

> I believe both the type safety issue and the desire for a generic
> array construct can be satisfied by the dynamic dispatching technique
> from Ed Akin's book cited in my previous post. [...]

> Note that linked lists are patented.  Usage may be hazzardous:
>
> http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023-fulltext.html

> On Jan 23, 12:45 am, garylsc...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>

>>Note that linked lists are patented. Usage may be hazzardous:
>>
>>http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023-fulltext.html

>
>
> WTF? "US Patent Issued on April 11, 2006", and the linked lists have
> been around for ages. Is this for real, or is it some perverted joke?