> Subject: Re: symbols in FORTRAN
> From: Michael Milgram <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi Robin:
>
> Sorry to keep you waiting. It happens to be summer, which is a precious commodity
> in these parts, so I went sailing instead of gluing myself to the computer.
>
> The "**" symbol is the only case I am aware of in which operators can appear
> side-by-side.
There are also "//" and "==".
And if one accidentally omits the "N" from .NEQV. it becomes .EQV.
> When one is preparing complicated formulae (perhaps your book
> contains a few?), it is easy to mistype something, and the compiler will
> immediately tell you if you've accidentally got a "+" next to a "-" for example.
> But it won't tell you if you've mistakenly got two "*" side-by-side.
** is easy to see.
> Many formula
> multiply quantities, and therefore contain many "*" operators, so it is easy to
> miss the fact that you have one too many, (or one too few).
Good layout can help avoid such errors (use of spaces, lining up etc)
> That's what I meant by "typo".
>
> Mike
>
> robin wrote:
>
> > >Since recent discussion centres on "improvements" for future Fortran,
> > >may I suggest the introduction of "^" symbol for exponentiation, to
> > >eventually replace "**".
> > >
> > >This would be consistent with some of the algebraic manipulation systems, and
> > >remove the possibility of certain typos going undetected.
> >
> > Still waiting to hear what kinds of "typos" can be incurred in writing a**b ?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|