Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- From: Dan Nagle <dannagle@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:24:28 GMT
Hello,
gary.l.scott@xxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>
This is the exact opposite of what I would want a bits datatype to
implement. I would want to to be a specifiable string of bits of any
length, not restricted to what's "most efficient". I've no problem
with special casing where the specified length is compatible with the
underlying hardware.
It's not only a question of efficiently, it's also a question
of the relationship among the bit size, the storage size and
the kind values of the entities involved.
Besides, the applications programmer already has the capability
to specify any bit string, due, in part, to the new LHS functions.
You're merely making the point that the standard is way too far ahead
of practice to know what's needed.
<snip>
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- From: gary . l . scott
- Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- References:
- fortran 2003 compiler
- From: Alinabi
- Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- From: Dan Nagle
- Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- From: gary . l . scott
- fortran 2003 compiler
- Prev by Date: Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- Next by Date: Can an intrinsic function be replaced in FTN95
- Previous by thread: Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- Next by thread: Re: fortran 2003 compiler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|