> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:14:36 -0800
> From: Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]>
> In the huge majority of existing codes, people don't start out by asking
> for a precision of p and a range of r. Instead, they ask for 32-bit
> or 64-bit reals and then have to translate their request into the
> standard's terms. I find selected_real_kind(12,30) to be a pretty
> verbose and nonintuitive spelling of 64-bit real. It is clear to
> me that so do a lot of other people. But 64-bit reals are such a common
> requirement that I think we should provide a simpler way to spell it,
> even though that spelling will be pretty duplicative of
> selected_real_kind(12,30). Yes, I know that they don't say exactly the
> same thing in theory, but they are sure pretty close in practice.
For 64-bit real, "double precision" and
"real (kind=kind(1.0d0))"
and "selected_real_kind(12)"
might do it better.
> > --
> Richard Maine
|