[J3] Consistency in conversion functions

Jeff Hammond jehammond at nvidia.com
Tue Apr 4 07:52:55 UTC 2023

To convert INTEGER kinds, we use INT().
To convert COMPLEX kinds, we use CMPLX().
To convert REAL kinds, we use REAL().
To convert LOGICAL kinds, we use LOGICAL().

Does this bother anyone else?

Are there technical or non-technical reasons why we bring consistency to this situation, by adding INTEGER() and COMPLEX() conversion intrinsics?  I have found the need to use INT() surprising and annoying often enough to have a practical motivation to solve this, not just an aesthetic one.

The only issue I see is that GNU has an extension COMPLEX() but I don’t see an incompatibility with CMPLX there, because the behavior of COMPLEX is a subset of CMPLX.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230404/2f604ec2/attachment.htm>

More information about the J3 mailing list