[log in to unmask] wrote:
...
> OTOH, we could extend the syntax of the kind thing-o in a literal to
> allow initialization expressions instead of names. One could then write
> something such as 0.1_real_kinds(1) to get default real and
> 0.1_real_kinds(2) to get double precision.
I really dislike that one. This thread began with the observation
that literals with KIND specifiers are illegible and error-prone
and now has lead to an extension of that very feature which is less
legible and more error-prone. Tragic irony?
--
J. Giles
|