Module naming restrictions for fpm

[FortranFan]

@certik

I think what @milancurcic summarized plus @aradi’s addition is the way to go.

I’ll add one more addition on top: with module-namespace = false the idea is that you will use it for end applications that are huge. Fpm will refuse to use any such package as a dependency by default. However, we’ll provide an option to override, on a command line (not in fpm.toml). That way there is no limitation and if you know what you are doing, you can. But by default fpm will not allow that, thus ensuring that modules cannot collide.

It appears there is convergence here on what to do OSTD (outside the standard) with fpm and that’s great to see.

@certik et al., is there anything that can be introduced in the language standard, say in Fortran 202Y and/or 203X, that can enable better packaging ecosystem for Fortran? You will be well aware of the issue threads that are open at the J3 Fortran site. Plus the committee is considering preprocessing facilities for 202Y.

It will be good to also keep the language standard in mind and consider viable options to continue evolving it toward better and better consumption of Fortran in a standard manner well into the future.