> On Mar 11, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Renchi Raju wrote:
>
> > maybe this has been suggested (and rejected) before. but how about
> > having
> > something similar to implicit statements.
> >
> > for eg:
> >
> > implicit real_kind(selected_real_kind(12,30))
and Richard Maine wrote:
> P.S. No, I don't have the time to explain all the complications.
> I don't even remember them all and I'm too busy today...
> it isn't as simple as you might think on the surface.
One of the problems is that after you do this, it's not obvious how to
declare variables or functions, or write literals, with the default kind.
This may not be much of a problem for real or complex, but would be a
significant problem for integers, because variables that return information
from allocate, deallocate and input/output statements are expected to be
default integers. One might think "just let them be any kind" but this
puts a substantial burden on the processor, and may sometimes result in
impossibilities. For example, if a processor provides a kind for what
amounts to the equivalent of a C signed char -- with range -128:127 --
and the processor needs to return a value with a greater magnitude, what
happens?
--
Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe
[log in to unmask] | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.
|