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

[Toon Moene]

On 01/17/2018 06:24 PM, Damian Rouson wrote:

> Jim wrote the first example like the one above for our book at a time 
> when no compiler on the planet could handle it because of the coarray 
> components. ?(Cray came the closest but had a bug.) ?That code, a 
> Burgers PDE solver, was the only code in our book that we weren?t able 
> to test before publication. 

For context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgers%27_equation

Johannes Martinus Burgers was the grandfather of one of my previous 
department managers.

> 
> Damian
> 
> On January 17, 2018 at 7:11:56 AM, Bill Long (longb at cray.com 
> <mailto:longb at cray.com>) wrote:
>>
>> I don?t find this example persuasive. Firstly, the obvious way to do 
>> something like this is to define the operator generic in the module 
>> where the type is defined and supply the implementation function in 
>> the same module. I don?t see how this example has anything to do with 
>> OOP or type-bound procedures. For simple computations, tbp are almost 
>> always the wrong choice for performance. I hope people are not being 
>> taught to do things like this. Finally, I would expect an operator 
>> named .dot. to have a scalar result.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>