Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Ken Plotkin <kplotkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:01:33 -0500
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:53:37 GMT, "James Giles"
<jamesgiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
The only real limitation would be that some features - those that
were genuinely incompatible between the old and new language
definitions) could not be used together in the same procedure.
Still, old and new languages would almost certainly remain
interoperable at the procedure call level of interaction.
We already have that for things like strings (f77 vs older) and array
operations (f90 vs older) without regard to free vs fixed format.
Why would someone want both styles in the same routine? And if you've
got some routines in fixed format and some in free, why even put them
in the same source file? There's nothing wrong with having routines
in separate source files.
Ken Plotkin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: J. F. Cornwall
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: kia
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- References:
- Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Joe Krahn
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Ken Plotkin
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Joe Krahn
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Michael Prager
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: James Giles
- Converting fixed-to-free format
- Prev by Date: Re: MPI
- Next by Date: Re: Illegal internal write?
- Previous by thread: Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- Next by thread: Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|