(j3.2006) [Re: Loop fusion vs. vectorization]

[Van Snyder]

I wrote:

>   z = &
>     & ( 1.0 - dy ) * (( 1.0 - dx ) * zOld(h) + &
>     &                 dx * zOld(reshape((/h(1,:)+1,h(2,:)/),(/2,size(z)/))) + &
>     & dy * (( 1.0 - dx ) * zOld(reshape((/h(1,:),h(2,:)+1/),(/2,size(z)/))) + &
>             dx * zOld(reshape((/h(1,:)+1,h(2,:)+1/),(/2,size(z)/))) )

and Bill commented

! More important, compared to 
! version 1, I consider version 2 to border on unreadable.

I agree, in this case.

Digressing, in general z(h) is clearer than
(/ ( z(h(1,i),h(2,i),... h(k,i), i=1,n ) /)
where k is the rank of z.

Notice that this is different from z(h(1,:),h(2,:), ..., h(k,:)).

The former is a rank one array of extent n.  The latter is a rank k
array of extent (n,n,n,...,n).

Further, z(h) could appear in a variable definition context (other than
an actual argument associated with a dummy argument that doesn't have
intent(in)), while (/ ( z(h(1,i),h(2,i),... h(k,i), i=1,n) /) cannot.