[J3] Consistency in conversion functions

Jeff Hammond jehammond at nvidia.com
Wed Apr 5 07:47:09 UTC 2023

Fortunately almost all of these can be fixed in a compiler. So it's good to have more compilers with different defaults and users can choose. I encourage you to get support for your proposal at the vendor you work for. I still think most (if not all) changes should be lead by compilers and users, and the committee should only standardize already "common practice".

Well, I already stated that gfortran supports a complex() intrinsic
subprogram, which differs from the suggested behabvior.  It has
for 20 to 25 years.  It has been stated by an individual, associated
with another vendor, that he does not care about what gfortran does
because it does not match his vision.

I unconditionally conceded to your argument.  Why are you unwilling to accept victory graciously?

What I actually said: "While accommodating GCC’s non-standard extensions is very low priority for me, I am perfectly happy to exclude complex numbers from this and just focus on INTEGER()..."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230405/40ec759b/attachment.htm>

More information about the J3 mailing list