[J3] Instead of += etc
Bill Long
longb at cray.com
Thu Nov 1 16:56:35 EDT 2018
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Anton Shterenlikht via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:28:02PM -0700, Van Snyder via J3 wrote:
>> C-like "operators" such as += are occasionally proposed. Of course, if
>
> I think this train has sailed.
>
> += is mentioned only once in N2147
> and only twice in the BCS survey:
> http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2018/FortranBenefitsSurvey_interimrep_Aug2018.pdf
>
> At the SEP-2018 BCS Fortran meeting
> there were users asking for this again.
> Their justification was that it's surprising
> for people new to Fortran that what works
> in C, C++ does not work in Fortran.
> I think this is a weak case.
Agreed. There are a lot of things in C/C++ (such as the use of { }, or // for commets ) that do not work in Fortran.
>
> On the other hand, at the same meeting
> there was some angry reaction
> from the users on the J3 decision
> to reject auto (re)allocation on READ,
> despite it scoring high in N2147.
> The justification given in
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/18/minutes215.txt
> was seen too harsh and dismissive by some:
>
> 18-135 "Use cases for unallocated list item in READ statement"
> This was broken out from allocatables in ERRMSG, IOMSG.
> Discussion items: Definite performance issue, as it
> would require double-reading. Appreciate the goal, but
> seems unrealistic. List directed could be a problem.
> Format reversion would be a problem. Simple would be
> valuable, but complicated could be very complicated
> SV: 0 - 8 - 4
>
> They wonder why a limited "simple” facility
It is not clear what is meant by “simple” here.
Cheers,
Bill
> cannot be implemented which, as DATA agreed,
> would be valuable.
>
> Anton
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9143
Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/ Suite 1000/ Bloomington, MN 55425
More information about the J3
mailing list