From: +ACI-Malcolm Cohen+ACI- +ADw-malcolm+AEA-NAG-J.CO.JP+AD4-
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 6:12 PM
+AD4APg- Admittedly, this might break some programs.
+AD4- Yes we have come full circle. Breaking programs, especially by a silent change of semantics, is
+AD4- simply a bad idea.
A compiler option can trivially deal with it.
The case of CMPLX(C) +AFs-where C is DOUBLE COMPLEX+AF0- to single precision is rare,
could have been used to convert to single precision. Likewise CMPLX(R1, R2) for douible precision
arguments,
+AD4- It would be better to have an alternative constructor that can be used instead of CMPLX.
+AD4- It will require some careful work to achieve, but should be possible at some point in the future.
I do not believe that it is nessary to go as far as that.
The name CMPLX widely appears in all kinds of documentation.
And leaving CMPLX as it is still leaves the way open for the
inadvertent conversion to single precision.
CMPLX should be made consistent with REAL.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|