>Furthermore, it only applies to default precision complex, not to
>non-default [read double precision] complex -- which stands to reason,
>as for compatability with earlier versions of Fortran, only
>default-precision complex need be supported in this regard.
Since we seem to have determined how standard complex looks to the programmer
and the compiler, does any vendor who uses double precision complex not use a
similar layout of the parts?
>The practice of using EQUIVALENCE in lieu of more
>modern forms apparently is being discouraged.
But aren't we also talking about code that we wrote back in the sixties? If it
ain't broken ...
I am not going to rewrite routines that work just because some constructs are
discouraged or obsolescent. I know that most vendors (definitely, it seems,
mine) will always support FORTRAN.
I do not believe that a standards committee should dictate style, once a
construct has become part of the language. (cf, the discussion on GOTO about 5
months ago.)
Yeah, except that REAL indices of Do loops were a mistake in the F77 standard,
look at how many people on comp.lang.fortran seem unable to understand computer
arithmetic. But, probably, most vendors will maintain them forever.
Regards, Paddy
Paddy O'Brien,
Transmission Development,
TransGrid,
PO Box A1000, Sydney South,
NSW 2000, Australia
Tel: +61 2 9284-3063
Fax: +61 2 9284-3050
Email: [log in to unmask]
Either "\'" or "\s" (to escape the apostrophe) seems to work for most people,
but that little whizz-bang apostrophe gives me little spam.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|