 |
 |
At 2:55 pm +0100 30/6/98, Dr W.W. Schulz wrote: > >Is there a fundamental reason not to define A/=B automatically >as .not.(A==B)? Or is that just a bloody oversight that will take >years to make it into the standard? > Here is a (very) contrived example... I can define DUMP to be a derived type encapsulating access to an IO device. I can define T to be an arbitraray derived type with many components. Then assume variables t,dump and that I overload > so that I can write t > dump means write t to the dump device and return true on success. Your transformations are not helpful since t < dump could mean read t from dump. (back to sanity now...) Harvey %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%