 |
 |
> Subject: Re: symbols in FORTRAN > From: Michael Milgram <[log in to unmask]> > Hi Robin: > > Sorry to keep you waiting. It happens to be summer, which is a precious commodity > in these parts, so I went sailing instead of gluing myself to the computer. > > The "**" symbol is the only case I am aware of in which operators can appear > side-by-side. There are also "//" and "==". And if one accidentally omits the "N" from .NEQV. it becomes .EQV. > When one is preparing complicated formulae (perhaps your book > contains a few?), it is easy to mistype something, and the compiler will > immediately tell you if you've accidentally got a "+" next to a "-" for example. > But it won't tell you if you've mistakenly got two "*" side-by-side. ** is easy to see. > Many formula > multiply quantities, and therefore contain many "*" operators, so it is easy to > miss the fact that you have one too many, (or one too few). Good layout can help avoid such errors (use of spaces, lining up etc) > That's what I meant by "typo". > > Mike > > robin wrote: > > > >Since recent discussion centres on "improvements" for future Fortran, > > >may I suggest the introduction of "^" symbol for exponentiation, to > > >eventually replace "**". > > > > > >This would be consistent with some of the algebraic manipulation systems, and > > >remove the possibility of certain typos going undetected. > > > > Still waiting to hear what kinds of "typos" can be incurred in writing a**b ? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%