Surely 39 continuation lines is sufficient to do reasonable things and
31-character names are adequately descriptive. There is no reason to
use a name like "iwbcns". How about
isotherm_bound_cond_navier_stk
or something similar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree that 31 characters is enough, I try and choose a
consistent naming convention for my subroutines, but whatever
convention I choose eventually has to be abandoned because of the
limitation. Your subroutine name only falls one character short of
the limitation, what if one wanted several versions of this subroutine
to exist? You'd have to change your convention and soon you'd be right back
to "ibcns" (well maybe not but you get the point).
In any case, it seems like a useless restriction, who
cares how long a subroutine name is? Is there a technical reason
why this number was chosen, or was it chosen arbitrarilly?
_______________________________________________________________________
| Pete Bismuti |
| Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |
| Florida State University - Department of Mathematics |
| [log in to unmask] (904)644-6263 |
|_____________________________________________________________________|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
