[J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Re: A couple more ideas for features

[Malcolm Cohen]

I wrote:

> Fortran has a much larger set than other languages viz the .lettersequence. form

 

Tom replies:

> But I tend to agree that the existing wordy-forms are the “good-enough” that are the sufficient enemies of better/perfect

 

In my opinion the existing forms are better than random non-letter characters. By a long way.

 

Cheers,

-- 

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.

 

From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> On Behalf Of Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:50 PM
To: General J3 interest list <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
Cc: Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) <thomas.l.clune at nasa.gov>; Malcolm Cohen <malcolm at nag-j.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [J3] [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Re: A couple more ideas for features

 

 

 

From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org <mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> > on behalf of j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org <mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> >
Reply-To: j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org <mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> >
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:43 PM
To: j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org <mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> >
Cc: Malcolm Cohen <malcolm at nag-j.co.jp <mailto:malcolm at nag-j.co.jp> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [BULK] Re: [J3] A couple more ideas for features

 

 

> But it is true that Fortran has a relative paucity of symbols that can be used as operators

 

Not so. Fortran has a much larger set than other languages viz the .lettersequence. form has over 26**63 variations that are available.  There are very few languages with more than 26**63 operators, and even fewer programs that could use that many.

 

Yes – I anticipated that response, but reasoned that others would understand the desire to have something looking a bit more like a concise symbol.      But I tend to agree that the existing wordy-forms are the “good-enough” that are the sufficient enemies of better/perfect.   There is even a counter argument against the concise mathematical symbols.   They tend to be “imbued” with meaning and can trip up unwary users when developers violate those assumptions.



> The other request was for a DO … UNTIL(cond)  to complement  DO WHILE(cond) …      I have no doubt that this request has come up before, so someone can quickly rattle off why it was not pursued

 

It is subsumed by the more general DO with EXIT. DO WHILE was only added for conformance with the widely-implemented MIL standard.

 

It would hardly even save any typing!

 

Yes – I’ve not missed it myself.  But felt obligated to at least float the suggestion as I get so few feature requests from NASA users (outside my immediate colleagues).

 

Cheers,

 

*	Tom

 

Cheers,

-- 

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230409/2a9b6892/attachment.htm>