At 2:55 pm +0100 30/6/98, Dr W.W. Schulz wrote:
>
>Is there a fundamental reason not to define A/=B automatically
>as .not.(A==B)? Or is that just a bloody oversight that will take
>years to make it into the standard?
>
Here is a (very) contrived example...
I can define DUMP to be a derived type encapsulating access to
an IO device. I can define T to be an arbitraray derived type
with many components.
Then assume variables t,dump and that I overload > so that I can
write
t > dump
means write t to the dump device and return true on success.
Your transformations are not helpful since
t < dump
could mean read t from dump.
(back to sanity now...)
Harvey
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|