Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine)
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:55:25 -0700
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
<helbig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(I personally don't
see why 1/3*VAR1/VAR2*VAR3**VAR4 shouldn't give the same result. I
agree that 1/3 as a standalone expression should give 0.)
See numerous previous posts about why Fortran does not evaluate
expressions depending on context. It does not matter whether it is a
standalone expression or part of something else; 1/3 always means the
same thing. Making it depend on context would completely tear apart the
core of expression parsing, and would result in great confusion in
complicated cases.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.
- References:
- communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: James Giles
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: James Giles
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- Prev by Date: Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- Next by Date: Re: Will Intel Visual Fortran 10.1 do automatic vectorization for me?
- Previous by thread: Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- Next by thread: Re: communicating the name of a function to deep within the call tree
- Index(es):