Re: Standards interpretation: interface and intent?
From: Gary L. Scott (garyscott_at_ev1.net)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: somebody intelligent: "Re: uniform random number generator"
- Previous message: bv: "Re: uniform random number generator"
- In reply to: Dr Chaos: "Re: Standards interpretation: interface and intent?"
- Next in thread: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Standards interpretation: interface and intent?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:17:30 -0500
Dr Chaos wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:44:51 -0500, Gary L. Scott <garyscott@ev1.net> wrote:
> > Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is one thing about the terminology that confuses me a little. If
> >> > it is "assumed", then there should be no additional information passed
> >> > since the shape or size is "assumed"???
> >>
> >> Well, you're the native speaker here (I assume), but I've always taken it
> >> to mean "assumed from information supplied by the callee".
> >
> > Usually though if something is passed, that makes it explicit. The
> > application programmer didn't provide it, but the compiler did. Doesn't
> > make it any less explicit.
It's explicit to the compiler. That's what matters. If the compiler
has the exact dimensions or shape, then it is "explicitly known" what
the dimensions or shape is. If not, then it may have to make
assumptions (which may be wrong). But I understand the usage. I was
just feeling argumentative again.
>
> yes it does, because most humans don't know exactly what any given compiler
> is doing, and neither should they.
>
> Since humans read the words defining the meaning of a programming language,
> the terminology ought to be in words meaningful to them.
>
> I believe that something "explicit" ought to mean "something that the human
> intentionally supplies by writing software statements saying so".
>
> like "explicit typing"
>
> integer :: i
> real :: a
>
> i = 42
> a = 3.14159
>
> "implicit typing"
>
> !
> ! with
> ! implicit real (a-h,o-z)
> ! implicit integer (i-n)
> ! in effect
> !
> i = 42
> a = 3.14159
-- 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: somebody intelligent: "Re: uniform random number generator"
- Previous message: bv: "Re: uniform random number generator"
- In reply to: Dr Chaos: "Re: Standards interpretation: interface and intent?"
- Next in thread: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Standards interpretation: interface and intent?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|