Pierre Hugonnet writes:
> BTW, a question on this particular point: why the f90 standard
> decided to use "%" against the more usual "." for object components
> (already used by C/C++) ?? I though it had to do with the existing
> Fortran syntax, that the choice of the "." was not possible for a
> good reason. But in fact it is, since it is accepted (it seems) by
> MS Powerstation.
One occasionally annoying thing about this list is the degree of
overlap between it and comp.lang.fortran. There is a quite long
thread on exactly this subject right now (though I hope its nearing
its end) on comp.lang.fortran.
In short, the "it seems" are the operative words. All cases will not
work correctly; there are ambiguities.
As to whether it would have been wise to try to specify what happens
in the ambiguous cases, I'm not going to say a word on that here. I
don't find it too useful to debate whether one does or does not agree
with past decisions anyway (clearly there are people who do, and other
people who don't on this one). I find it even less useful when I just
finished watching (though mostly staying out of) such a debate on the
same subject in another forum. One can always use google if you don't
have newsgroup access. (But I must say that I didn't find the debate
on clf very enlightening - you might not want to bother).
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
