> [[ off-line, here ]]
On-line here, so no one else wastes their time correcting my
`oversight'; I've been away for a while due to problems with subscribing
from a new address (now sorted out) and the message I replied to was the
first one I got.
> On Jul 7, 3:59pm, Phillip Helbig wrote:
> > Subject: Re: operator( == ) and its negation
> > > 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?
> >
> > Am I missing something?...
>
> Yes. :-)
>
> What you missed is that he was referring to user-defined overloading of
> the == operator for user-defined types. He was saying that if the user
> defines "==", then the system should automatically
> define "a/=b" as ".NOT. (a==b)".
In this case, I must say that it would seem logical for the automatic
definition to be standard.
--
Phillip Helbig Email .......... [log in to unmask]
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297)
Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|