Re: Integer Coersion

PJH wrote:
<SNIP>
> ps
Someone around here is going to get hot under the collar with you for saying
that INTEGER(1) implies 1 byte, rather than INTEGER*1. I'm sure there
actully are some compilers out there that deliberately don't have a
KIND=BYTE equivalence.

David Frank wrote
<SNIP>

I am not sure about "deliberately", but Salford FTN95, for example, considers the kind numbers to be ordinal, giving 1,2,3,4 for INTEGER*1,2,4,8 and kind=1,2,3 for 32, 64 and 80 bit floats.

After all, the English word "kind" suggests enumeration rather than measurement. On the other hand, if each increase in the kind number suggested a doubling of the byte-count of the floating-point word, the 80-bit float would be "odd".

-- mecej4
.