> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:22:02 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask] (Phillip Helbig)
> I think it makes code less readable to specify kind values on literals.
Then use the suffux "d0" for double precision, and none for
default precision.
> It would be nice to be able to alter the default kind for literals
> within a scoping unit.
> Many folks have the impression that DOUBLE PRECISION has been superseded
It hasn't, but the KIND may provide better flexibility, and it it is necessary
to use KIND for double precision COMPLEX (and for any other extra precisions).
> by the KIND mechanism. Sure, KIND can do more stuff, but am I mistaken
> that there are some applications where the RELATIVE precisions are more
> important? For example, some subroutine deep down might want to use
> higher precision than the stuff the user is interfacing with,
> independent of the actual precisions involved.
That's done with the KIND mechanism and/or with DOUBLE PRECISION.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|