 |
 |
> Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 18:31:52 -0500 > From: Peter Shenkin <[log in to unmask]> > Hi, > > Some of the problem is with floating-point literals. What if the > spec were to say that if a literal does not have a KIND specified, > it is to be interpreted as the "greatest" kind that the implementation > supports (rather than the default kind)? > > For instance, in "REAL a; a= 1./7.", 1. and 7. might be interpreted > as, say, DOUBLE PRECISION constants. > > It seems to me that this simple proposal would solve a lot of gotchas > that arise when, say, you want to take old code with an expression > such as the above and make "a" DOUBLE PRECISION instead. But wouldn't that introduce a host of incompatability problems, including constants used as arguments, built-in functions? (CMPLX could be one in particular) > -- > Peter S. Shenkin Schrodinger, Inc.