[J3] Why is += missing?

[Holcomb, Katherine A (kah3f)]

I too have wished for += and friends but was discouraged due to it being pointed out that /= is (probably) a nonstarter, and it’s odd to support one (or two) without the others.  But it is incredibly awkward to type things like
  X%Y(n)%Z=X%Y(n)%Z+1
I have actual code which requires far more keystrokes than the above for this simple operation.

I don’t see the conventional divide symbol on my keyboard and would not be in favor of using characters outside the standard character set but maybe some other sequence could be invented.

But only += and -= without the others would be a win since it seems likely those are by far the most commonly used.

Katherine Holcomb
UVA Research Computing  https://www.rc.virginia.edu
kah3f at virginia.edu<mailto:kah3f at virginia.edu>    434-982-5948

From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> On Behalf Of Brad Richardson via J3
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:34 AM
To: j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
Cc: Brad Richardson <everythingfunctional at protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [J3] Why is += missing?

> += and -=, which are more likely to have hardware support anyways.

This is I think the compelling argument that might win over more of the committee; that it will make it easier for compilers to take advantage of newer hardware/instruction sets for these cases. As much as I am convinced by the convenience of the "syntactic sugar", I think improved performance is the selling point for Fortran.

Brad

On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 13:27 +0000, Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote:
I will argue that it is syntactic sugar in the same sense that multidimensional arrays are.  Below is the perfectly functional C code I wrote to match my Fortran years ago (because computer scientists don’t know their history).  There is no actual need for multidimensional arrays in Fortran, just the practical difficulty of not having them.

// t3(h3,h2,h1,p6,p5,p4)+=t1(p4,h1)*v2(h3,h2,p6,p5);
t3[h3+h3u*(h2+h2u*(h1+h1u*(p6+p6u*(p5+p5u*p4))))] += t1[p4+p4u*h1] * v2[h3+h3u*(h2+h2u*(p6+p6u*p5))];

I think the relative usage of +=, -=, *=, ÷=, and **= if they were added justifies the pragmatic solution of just doing += and -=, which are more likely to have hardware support anyways.

Jeff

From:J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org>> on behalf of Steve Lionel via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>>
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:13 PM
To: j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>>
Cc: Steve Lionel <steve at stevelionel.com<mailto:steve at stevelionel.com>>
Subject: Re: [J3] Why is += missing?
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments

On 8/25/2021 8:07 AM, Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote:
After 15 years as a Fortran programmer, I am still annoyed on a daily basis about the tedium imposed on me because Fortran lacks +=.
This was considered - there were a few requests for it in the 202X survey we ran 2017-2018. I suspect it fell off the list because of 1)  it is "syntactic sugar", not adding any new capability and 2) the existing use of /= requiring some complicated exceptions. It could be done, sure, but the demand seems low. We'll soon start the process for 202Y features - feel free to put it forward then.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20210825/3a57c940/attachment.htm>