 |
 |
> > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, W. J. Metzger wrote: > > > > How about sumx = sum( real( x, kind(0d0) ) ) > > > > > > I would expect this to create a large temporary array, which > > > has got to be a net loss. > > > > > > It would be great if SUM could accept an optional KIND argument > > > which specifies the precision at which the summation is done. > > > > It seems to me that this wouldn't matter. The standard doesn't specify > > how things are done internally. ... > > Obviously (but maybe not :-) ), what I am proposing the optional > KIND argument would do would be to specify how things are done > internally, for this function. Right, but the above, or sumx = sum(dble(x)) seems to me to say the same thing---some the double-precision version of x. I think it would be a departure from previous practice if the standard didn't specify what was done internally here, but did for an optional argument. Pessimists say that it is quality of implementation. Perhaps. But the above DOES say that the double-precision version of x is to be summed, and it would be good quality if an unnecessary temporary array were not created. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%