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?
Yes, it's not true. Consider if A and B are IEEE reals, and A is NaN.
A==B is false, and so is A/=B. It's not hard to imagine a derived type with
a similar property.
--
Richard Shapiro
Principal Engineer, Silicon Graphics SSO
[log in to unmask]
(781) 648-2269 MRF, (978) 567-2211 TW, (978) 567-2411 (Fax)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|