On a second go around, the implementors agreed that consistency with other
Fortrans is important, although they read the standard as permitting the
time report in UTC with the time zone information backwards. So, I hope
that one more brand of Fortran should fall in step.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan van Oosterwijk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: DATE_AND_TIME interpretation
> Tim,
>
> At 20:52 13-10-00 -0400, you wrote:
> >My understanding of DATE_AND_TIME, reinforced by the way it was
> >implemented by CVF, MipsPro, and Lahey, and by the absence of bug reports
> >on our g77 library version, is that the TIME field returns local time,
and
> >the ZONE field reflects the difference between that time and UTC. Other
> >vendors read Adams, Brainerd et al "Fortran 95 Handbook" and come up with
> >a different result, even though inter-operability with CVF and SGI
> >compilers has been given as a stated goal. Is this a point where the
> >standard allows variation?
> >
> >Tim
> >[log in to unmask]
> IMH date_and_time() takes its data from the system.
> The example given in the Standard and in "Fortran 95 Handbook"
> suggests that date and time are considered to be LOCAL.
> I would be surprised and sad if it were to be interpreted
> otherwise.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
>
> Jan van Oosterwijk
> Computing Centre
> Delft University of Technology
> Phone: +31 15 278 5017
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> ___ __
> / \/ / /
> __/ /__/
>
> Jan van Oosterwijk
> Prinses Margrietlaan 12
> 2264 TB Leidschendam
>
> tel. 070 888 0239
>
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
>
|