>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:50:03 +0300
>To: [log in to unmask]
>From: Jan van Oosterwijk <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: DATE_AND_TIME interpretation
>Cc: fort-l
>
>Tim,
>
>At 20:52 13-10-00 -0400, you wrote:
>>My understanding of DATE_AND_TIME, reinforced by the way it was
>>implemented by CVF, MipsPro, and Lahey, and by the absence of bug reports
>>on our g77 library version, is that the TIME field returns local time,
>>and the ZONE field reflects the difference between that time and
>>UTC. Other vendors read Adams, Brainerd et al "Fortran 95 Handbook" and
>>come up with a different result, even though inter-operability with CVF
>>and SGI compilers has been given as a stated goal. Is this a point where
>>the standard allows variation?
>>
>>Tim
>>[log in to unmask]
Walt,
While I was looking up things for this problem,
I found a difference in the example between your book and
the Standard.
On page 578 in the book it says
CALL DATE_AND_TIME(BIG_BEN(3), DATE_TIME)
This should be
CALL DATE_AND_TIME(BIG_BEN(1),BIG_BEN(2),BIG_BEN(3),DATE_TIME)
to obtain the desired result.
Suppose you can make the correction sometime.
> IMH date_and_time() takes its data from the system.
>The example given in the Standard and in "Fortran 95 Handbook"
>suggests that date and time are considered to be LOCAL.
>I would be surprised and sad if it were to be interpreted
>otherwise.
>
>Best regards,
>
>--
>
>Jan van Oosterwijk
>Computing Centre
>Delft University of Technology
>Phone: +31 15 278 5017
>
---
Met vriendelijke groet,
___ __
/ \/ / /
__/ /__/
Jan van Oosterwijk
Prinses Margrietlaan 12
2264 TB Leidschendam
tel. 070 888 0239
mailto:[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|