# stdlib\_LinAlgOperators: Linear Algebra Operators

**URL:** <https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/stdlib-linalgoperators-linear-algebra-operators/9286>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [March 2, 2025, 10:21pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/stdlib-linalgoperators-linear-algebra-operators/9286 "2025-03-02T22:21:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ivanpribec](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/ivanpribec/32/3290_2.png) [@ivanpribec](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/ivanpribec)\
**Post date:** [March 3, 2025, 8:44pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/stdlib-linalgoperators-linear-algebra-operators/9286/9 "2025-03-03T20:44:30Z")

</div>

> [@kimala](#):
>
> Could reverse communication be as simple/user friendly as this?

IMO it is just a matter of choosing your own poison. Some people avoid type extension and deferred bindings, others don’t like reverse communication. I think @victotronics [has described](https://web.archive.org/web/20220121212952/http://computer-programming-forum.com/49-fortran/cd933b17b5b4592e.htm) reverse communication fairly when he says:

> The idea is to make the function data-independent by keeping  
> the data entirely outside its scope. Thus for every operation on that data  
> you have to return, with a request parameter indicating what  
> operation has to be performed outside, and you have to have a way  
> to indicate where you resume after the operation is done.
> 
> I’ve written code like this, and **it’s kinda neat, but I’m not**  
> **entirely unconvinced that it’s not totally evil. Or not.**  
> [emphasis added]

---

_[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/stdlib-linalgoperators-linear-algebra-operators/9286)._