Hi,
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, 12:13am -0000, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > Some of the problem is with floating-point literals. What if the
> > spec were to say that if a literal does not have a KIND specified,
> > it is to be interpreted as the "greatest" kind that the implementation
> > supports (rather than the default kind)?
> >
> > For instance, in "REAL a; a= 1./7.", 1. and 7. might be interpreted
> > as, say, DOUBLE PRECISION constants.
...
> Yes, but it introduces new problems when there is no obvious
> way to correct a "mistake" do to this promotion.
>
> Things like
> call expects_a_single_precision_arg (3.14)
Right. You'd have to say
call expects_a_single_precision_arg (real(3.14))
Good point. I was just thinking out loud....
-P.
--
Peter S. Shenkin Schrodinger, Inc.
VP, Software Development 120 W. 45th St., 32nd Floor
646 366 9555 x111 Tel New York, NY 10036
646 366 9550 FAX USERID: shenkin
http://www.schrodinger.com DOMAIN: schrodinger DOT com
Pre-arranged conf. calls: 702-759-8420 or 888-867-7084; passcode 646-366
|