(j3.2006) Would there be a technical problem if...

[Damian Rouson]

When I first wrote the email below, I used a cross product. ? I?m not sure why I switched it to a dot product before sending the email, but of course the dot product makes no sense in the context below so it should have been a cross product.

Damian

On January 17, 2018 at 6:54:15 AM, Damian Rouson (damian at sourceryinstitute.org) wrote:

Such a feature would be especially nice for use with type-bound operators:

type(vector_field) : u(3), v(3), w(3)
u = v .dot. w


Damian
On January 16, 2018 at 7:25:51 PM, Van Snyder (van.snyder at jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:

We require the passed-object dummy argument to be scalar.

Would there be a technical problem if it were allowed to be an array, at
least in the case it has INTENT(IN)?

I tried to create a generic "dump" binding that would dump a scalar,
using a type-bound routine with a scalar passed-object dummp argument,
and another one with a rank-one passed-object dump argument. The array
dump just iterated over the elements and called the scalar one.


_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20180117/cd64b763/attachment.html>