Phillip Helbig wrote:
> Let's see, apart from $, ? and ^, what is still not part of the
> character set? ~`@#[]\{}
>
> I think [] should be allowed to replace parentheses in the case of array
> indexes. Perhaps {} for function references. Then () could be used for
> grouping. Or perhaps {} for grouping leaving () for function (and
> subroutine) references. (I think the latter is better.) (I think this
> corresponds to Mathematica usage.) I like the idea of @ introducing a
> macro, something like
>
> MACRO FOO
> <insert code here>
> END MACRO FOO
>
> then @FOO in the code.
I like the macro idea!
I thought [] could be used to pass in types:
subroutine sort(x)[type_in]
type([type_in]) :: x
...
end subroutine sort
...taking advantage of the fact that [][ wasn't used for anything.
Alvaro Fernandez
Rice University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|