> Phillip Helbig said:
> > needs its equivalent DOUBLE COMPLEX to be standardised, and perhaps
>
> Double precision COMPLEX was standardised in F90, it is spelled
> COMPLEX(KIND(0d0))
Right.
> > Alternatively, one could introduce INTEGER arguments to KIND, like
>
> I don't understand this comment since kind specifiers are indeed integers.
>
> > REAL, KIND='DOUBLE' :: X, Y, Z
>
> And this ('DOUBLE') is a character string not an integer. Oh well.
Sorry, I meant `character' obviously.
I guess the main thrust of my message should have been `can one specify
different precisions for user-defined TYPEs' although this is really a
different topic.
--
Phillip Helbig Email ......... [log in to unmask]
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 2635)
Jodrell Bank Fax ................ +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield Telex ................ 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web ... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/
************************ currently working at *******************************
Kapteyn Instituut Email (above preferred) [log in to unmask]
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Tel. ...................... +31 50 363 4067
Postbus 800 Fax ....................... +31 50 363 6100
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands Web ... http://gladia.astro.rug.nl/~helbig/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|