Re: defining an arbitrary type in your newer Fortrans

Thanks for this Walter

I seem to remember either Microsoft PowerStation or DEC Fortran had a
(non-F90) user defined type that used the dot notation - I think it was
called a STRUCTURE or maybe a RECORD (my memory of the details is somewhat
hazy). Possibly it was the overloaded operator in F90 that caused problems?
FWIW, I find the dot notation significantly easier to "read" than %, which
doesn't really separate the different elements - for instance:

This%is%a%long%name

This.is.a.long.name

It is also one of those differences that always trips me up when switching
between Fortran to Delphi; almost as much as the dreaded Pascal :=
assignment and semi-colons at the end of lines.

Still, no point in complaining as it certainly isn't going to change just
for me.

Paul Holden


"Walter Spector" <w6ws_xthisoutx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:456C7F58.39078418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PJH wrote:
...
Accessing elements/fields in a Fortran type instance is done using a %
character, rather than the dot that is used in Pascal and just about
every
other language that I have used. I have never understood why the
standards
committee decided against the dot notation, maybe someone could educate
me
on that issue - I'm sure they had a good reason other than just being
contrary.

Sure. Fortran, since day one, has had operators that are delimited with
dots.
This conflicts with the use of dot notation for derived types - especially
when
one considers the Fortran-90 operator overloading capabilities.

I like to think that the percent sign tells me that I am referencing some
'percentage' of the object...

The array declaration statement you quote looks odd to me if it is
supposed
to be an example of "new" Fortran - the REAL*8 is legal but not
recommended
syntax...

READ*8 is non-standard.

W.


.