I wrote:
>> I find selected_real_kind(12,30) to be a pretty
>> verbose and nonintuitive spelling of 64-bit real.
On Mar 10, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Robin wrote:
> For 64-bit real, "double precision" and
> "real (kind=kind(1.0d0))"
No thanks. Been there. Done that. Regretted it. Wasted way too
much of my time already converting codes that made this unjustified
assumption.
And for that matter, real(kind=kind(1.d0)) isn't exactly my idea of
an intuitive way to spell 64-bits. Take any 100 programmers that
don't already know f90 and ask them what that means. Would you like
to take bets on the fraction that are even close? Go ahead and
stack the deck my making them all competent programers, and they can
even be f77 experts, as long as they don't know f90.
> and "selected_real_kind(12)" might do it better.
If you think it obvious that this means 64-bits, be my guest.
This differs only in the omission of the ",30" from what I was
complaining about. Sorry, but when I see 12, it doesn't
immediately make me think of 64. Not to mention the fact that
it takes half of a line to type (I always thought "double precision"
was bad enough that way).
Yes, this gets you 64 bits in practice, but how to do that
wasn't the question. I know how to do that. The question was
how to do it in a simple, intuitive, readable way. I don't
think this is a simple, intuitive, and readable way to spell
64-bits. I claim support from observational evidence in terms
of the fraction of programers who either explicitly complain
about this or just decline to use it.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
