Re: What can be done in FORTRAN that cannot be done in C/C++?
From: Gary L. Scott (garyscott_at_ev1.net)
Date: 07/03/04
- Next message: Gary L. Scott: "Re: What is Gerry Thomas's Contribution to NG's"
- Previous message: Aardpig: "Re: What is Gerry Thomas's Contribution to NG's"
- In reply to: Ken Plotkin: "Re: What can be done in FORTRAN that cannot be done in C/C++?"
- Next in thread: Gary Scott: "Re: What can be done in FORTRAN that cannot be done in C/C++?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 10:06:23 -0500
Ken Plotkin wrote:
>
> On 2 Jul 2004 07:39:30 -0700, gary.l.scott@lmco.com (Gary Scott)
> wrote:
>
> >? We've just made it "standard" in my argument so the non-standard
> >behaviour is now to assume implicit none. User's with old code (F95
> >compliant) simply use a switch to get the old behaviour. What's so
> >hard about that?
>
> If something is declared to be standard, then it really takes more
> than a whim to declare it to be non-standard. People count on
> standards - the the very idea of a standard it that it defines the
> accepted way of doing things, one that will be stable. Arbitrarily
> change things, and there is no point to standards.
>
I agree generally, but this choice was just plain wrong. Fixing things
that are just plain wrong is acceptable in my opinion (those last three
words being of course key here).
> I suppose I should be confused by the denigration of Fortran's
> implicit typing. I find the implicit rule that i-n is integer and
> other letters to be real to a tremendous asset. Ihave been involved
> with one program for almost 30 years that was originally written by
> someone else, that does not follow that rule. Having to flip back to
> the declarations to see what type a variable is constantly drives me
> nuts.
Implicit typing has never been a major cause of error for myself,
however most arguments that I've heard indicate that it can be a major
or at least significant source of errors. It is considered by most to
be bad practice. I tend to disagree in that I very much LIKE default
behaviors (especially when it comes to things like GUI APIs). All you
need to do is memorize (or have reference for) those default behaviors.
>
> Doesn't anyone else consider consistent naming of variable so their
> type is apparent to be a Good Thing, worthy of being standard?
I personally use it all the time for quick and dirty tests and such.
However a command line switch to get that behavior would be of
exceedingly minimal bother. I am perfectly happy if it only applies to
free form source also since that's where I think the mistake was made
and that would impact far fewer applications.
>
> Ken Plotkin
-- Gary Scott mailto:garyscott@ev1.net Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html Why are there two? God only knows. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner... Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. - Thomas Jefferson
- Next message: Gary L. Scott: "Re: What is Gerry Thomas's Contribution to NG's"
- Previous message: Aardpig: "Re: What is Gerry Thomas's Contribution to NG's"
- In reply to: Ken Plotkin: "Re: What can be done in FORTRAN that cannot be done in C/C++?"
- Next in thread: Gary Scott: "Re: What can be done in FORTRAN that cannot be done in C/C++?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
