Pierre,
I think the problem is that DPROD is an old holdover from F66 and nobody
knows what it does. The standard doesn't specify whether DPROD(X,Y) is the
same as DBLE(X)*DBLE(Y) or DBLE(X*Y)
Since it is so easy to write whichever one you think it should really
be, there's no need to extend it. As someone else mentioned, it's hard
to use if you change the declared kind of X and Y. You're better off
to use explicit KINDs and force whatever type you need, in my opinion.
Dick Hendrickson
At 09:11 AM 6/19/98 +0200, Pierre Hugonnet wrote:
>(if you already got this message, don't take care, I had some mail pbs)
>
>
>Hello everybody,
>
>
>DPROD is a very useful function, but not complete.
>I think it should be:
>
>1 - generalised to complex numbers (why isn't it ?)
>
>2 - generalised to any kind parameters, something like
> DPROD(x,y,KIND=...), meaning that we want the result in
> the given real kind (this is of course essentially different from
> REAL(x*y,KIND=...) or REAL(x,KIND=...)*REAL(y,KIND=...) )
>
>
>What are your opinions about that ?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|