Re: Interpretion of file name suffixes

From: TimC (tconnors_at_no.astro.spam.swin.accepted.edu.here.au)
Date: 05/21/04 

Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 03:08:40 GMT

Steve Lionel (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> My personal view on this matter is that .f95 is an abomination and should not
> be used. It is an unfortunate, and I feel misguided, compounding of the
> initial collective mistake of tying the notion of free-form source to a
> particular revision of the Fortran standard. Note that one can write code
> requiring Fortran 95 entirely in fixed-form source - the language is not the
> source form.

And damn XEmacs :)

There is a f90-mode, which only deals with free form, and a
fortran-mode, which deals with fixed form. Unfortunately, fortran-mode
doesn't have keywords and other constructs that are perfectly valid in
fixed-form F90. So I switch to f90-mode, and it doesn't recognise
free-format constructs such as f90-style continuation lines.

One of the reasons I slowly change all of my code over to F90 free
form, is because f90-mode prettifies the code, and I think the old
code looks really ugly :) (pity nothing other than human can untangle
some of the spagetti code I have been landed with). 

-- 
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug 
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug 
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@#    Error: Missing Carrier Signal