Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays
From: Richard Maine (nospam_at_see.signature)
Date: 01/07/04
- Next message: Richard Maine: "Re: Two questions about character strings ..."
- Previous message: James Giles: "Re: Merseene Twister -- A New Fortran 95 Implementation"
- In reply to: Jugoslav Dujic: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Next in thread: Greg Chien: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Reply: Greg Chien: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Reply: Jugoslav Dujic: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:56:28 -0800
"Jugoslav Dujic" <jdujicREMOVE@uns.ns.ac.yu> writes:
> Automatic arrays (with all their limitations) are implemented on the
> stack in order to be fast; if speed is not an issue for you, then
> use an allocatable;...
I disagree with the implication that speed is the only reason to use
automatics. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that, but that's what I
read in the clause quoted above. While it is one reason, it is not
the only. The other (and a very big one in my mind) is that
automatics are so simple to write. If you can live with their
limitations (notably the necessity for the bounds to be specification
expressions, the lack of error handling, and the fact that their
lifetime is always that of one procedure invocation), then they are a
lot simpler to write (and understand) than allocatables. Heck, people
keep guessing the syntax without having been told about it.
-- Richard Maine email: my last name at domain domain: sumertriangle dot net
- Next message: Richard Maine: "Re: Two questions about character strings ..."
- Previous message: James Giles: "Re: Merseene Twister -- A New Fortran 95 Implementation"
- In reply to: Jugoslav Dujic: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Next in thread: Greg Chien: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Reply: Greg Chien: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Reply: Jugoslav Dujic: "Re: ALLOCATABLE arrays"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|