Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?

Hello,

On 2008-06-29 18:34:23 -0400, lindahl@xxxxxxx (Greg Lindahl) said:

In article <2008062720414243658-dannagle@verizonnet>,
Dan Nagle <dannagle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

On 2008-06-27 20:07:56 -0400, lindahl@xxxxxxx (Greg Lindahl) said:

programmers asked for what ended up being 36 bit variables when 32
would have worked most of the time.

Pray please explain how the kind system
allows the requirement of bit-sizes.

Your computer is binary, not decimal, right?

My _current_ computers, yes. What say you of my future computers?
BTW, if my calculators count as computers (programmable, but no Fortran),
then not all are binary. You're dancing on a slippery slope.

So if you ask for a kind
which doesn't fit into 32 bits, you have a requirement that your type
won't fit into 32 bits. If we're talking about an integer, then this is
extremely inefficient on a processor which doesn't have any integer
type in hardware bigger than 32 bits.

One of the few requirements (in f08) of kinds is that
at least one kind of integer must support
about 18 decimal digits (that is, 64 bits).

The proposal is/was well-supported among vendors.
Addresses and file sizes lead the way.

--
Cheers!

Dan Nagle

.

Relevant Pages