Fortran Programming Language :: utility to replace "end" with "end subroutine foo"


	utility to replace "end" with "end subroutine foo" Has anyone written a utility to replace "end" statements with "end program/subroutine/function" statements as appropriate? When I use someone else's Fortran code one of the first things I want to do is put it in a module, but this does not work if plain "end" statements are present. "Beliavsky" <beliav@aol.com> wrote in message news:1177699661.529939.195410@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > Has anyone written a utility to replace "end" statements with "end > program/subroutine/function" statements as appropriate? When I use > someone else's Fortran code one of the first things I want to do is > put it in a module, but this does not work if plain "end" statements > are present. Maybe not what you want, but convert.f90 does it when converting from fixed- to free-form source. Regards, Mike Metcalf Beliavsky wrote: > Has anyone written a utility to replace "end" statements with "end > program/subroutine/function" statements as appropriate? When I use > someone else's Fortran code one of the first things I want to do is > put it in a module, but this does not work if plain "end" statements > are present. The f90-mode in emacs does this when you hit 'tab' over the statement. Being emacs, I'm sure there's an (arcane, lisp) way to call the function that does this, for the entire file. cheers, Rich Just write it yourself. O.k. maybe is not the easiest thing in fortran, it gets a little easier in C and of course it does not get any easier when using one of those scripting languages like tcl, perl, python... If all you know if fortran, and possibly not all that well, here is a learning opportunity for you, it would be a nice simple exercise. gsal Rich Townsend wrote: > Beliavsky wrote: >> Has anyone written a utility to replace "end" statements with "end >> program/subroutine/function" statements as appropriate? [...] > The f90-mode in emacs does this when you hit 'tab' over the statement. > Being emacs, I'm sure there's an (arcane, lisp) way to call the > function that does this, for the entire file. Being Emacs, if there isn't already a way, there can be: (defun f90-match-all-ends (beg end) "Qualify all ENDs in the region." (interactive "r") (save-excursion (goto-char end) (setq end (point-marker)) (goto-char beg) (let ((f90-smart-end 'noblink)) (while (re-search-forward "^[ \t0-9]end" end t) (goto-char (line-beginning-position)) (skip-chars-forward " \t0-9") (when (f90-looking-at-program-block-end) (f90-match-end)))))) Interactively: C-x h M-x f90-match-all-ends Batch-mode: Save the above definition to a file foo.el, then emacs -batch --no-site-file -l f90 -l ./foo.el \ --eval '(progn (find-file "code.f90") (f90-match-all-ends (point-min) (point-max)) (write-file "code_end.f90"))' salger@gmail.com (gsal) wrote in <1177724457.176154.253290 @h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >Just write it yourself. >O.k. maybe is not the easiest thing in fortran, it gets a little >easier in C and of course it does not get any easier when using one of >those scripting languages like tcl, perl, python... It doesn't? I'm pretty fluent in Fortran, C and TCL, and I would write this one in TCL every time! gsal wrote: > O.k. maybe is not the easiest thing in fortran, it gets a little > easier in C and of course it does not get any easier when using one of > those scripting languages like tcl, perl, python... If you simplify the problem somewhat, good enough for the programs it is likely to be used for, it isn't bad. No continuation between the beginning of the subroutine statement and the end of the name, no continued END statements. I offer this in awk, which didn't take long at all. /^ subroutine / { x=$2 sub("\\(.$","",x) } /^ function / { x=$2 sub("\\(.$","",x) } /^ end $/ { sub(" *$","") print $0, x } -- glen On Apr 28, 5:49 am, g@sfuu.ca (Ian Gay) wrote: > salger@gmail.com (gsal) wrote in <1177724457.176154.253290 > @h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > >Just write it yourself. > >O.k. maybe is not the easiest thing in fortran, it gets a little > >easier in C and of course it does not get any easier when using one of > >those scripting languages like tcl, perl, python... > It doesn't? I'm pretty fluent in Fortran, C and TCL, and I would write this one in TCL every > time! Yeah, that's what I meant...my typo...I meant to say "it does not get any easier THAN when using tcl..." or something along those lines, you know what I mean, now. And, yes, I would do it in tcl, too. - Hide quoted text - gsal wrote: > On Apr 28, 5:49 am, g@sfuu.ca (Ian Gay) wrote: >> salger@gmail.com (gsal) wrote in <1177724457.176154.253290 >> @h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >>> Just write it yourself. >>> O.k. maybe is not the easiest thing in fortran, it gets a little >>> easier in C and of course it does not get any easier when using one of >>> those scripting languages like tcl, perl, python... >> It doesn't? I'm pretty fluent in Fortran, C and TCL, and I would write this one in TCL every >> time! > Yeah, that's what I meant...my typo...I meant to say "it does not get > any easier THAN when using tcl..." or something along those lines, > you know what I mean, now. And, yes, I would do it in tcl, too. Bah, a real programmer would use Intercal. You youngsters, you.... Rich Townsend wrote: > ... > Bah, a real programmer would use Intercal. You youngsters, you.... Or TECO. W.