[J3] Consistency in conversion functions

[Brad Richardson]

I'm sympathetic with the desire for consistency within the language, but this is not a thing that has ever really bothered me. I think there's other issues more worthy of our time.

Brad

On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 07:52 +0000, Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote:

> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230404/9083d2d9/attachment.htm>