From: "Malcolm Cohen" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 6:30 PM
> >The proposal does not invalidate any old programs.
>
> Unfortunately it does, it invalidates programs going all the way back to
> Fortran 77.
You didn't read my proposal.
I wrote :--
Compatabilty with the old non-generic form, dating from the 1960s,
can be provided by a compiler option.
>>And some users could well find that their programs begin giving
> more-accurate results !! because they did not use CMPLX correctly (and
> inadvertently had their double-precision values quietly converted to single
> precision).
>
> And other users could well find their programs failing to compile, giving
> incorrect results,
Not with a compiler option.
> or crashing at runtime because they are now passing
> things twice as big as before, but the receiver is not expecting that.
Not with a compiler option.
>>The inadequacy of the existing CMPLX has caught professionals.
And that's precisely the reason for making the change.
> Which is precisely why I wrote:
>>> You might find it easier to use a compiler that warns you when you've
>>> apparently forgotten to use the KIND argument of CMPLX.
You also ignored the point that some users may find that their programs
deliver more accurate results.
> Such compilers are in fact available.
That's useful, but irrelevant.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|