The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Richard Maine <nos...@see.signature> wrote:(snip, I wrote)
>> The standard has it under(snip)
>> "Specific names for standard intrinsic functions"
>> Doesn't say anything about archaic.
> Likely the only reason the standard doesn't say it is archaic is becauseThere is still a note in F2008 on the small typeface for depracated
> the standard doesn't say such things at all. There was a category of
> deprecated features once proposed for f90, but it got dropped as too
features. I don't know that there are actually any with that typeface.
As far as I can tell, the specific names section doesn't use the
> Any recommendation about whether something should be avoided as archaicStill, compiler documentation is different from ones personal
> (or deprecated if one prefers that term) is a personal one rather than
> one in the standard. Just because the standard doesn't have such
> recommendations doesn't mean they can't be darned good ideas.
opinion in a newsgroup post.
> I personally consider things like DCOS to be archaic, and I recommendYes. The need for numerically integrating cos() should be pretty
> never using it. I'm not going to waffle by saying "rarely". I mean that
> "never" literally. Yes, I know you can invent a case where one could use
> it. But such things are so rare that I do not recall ever once seeing
> such a case in code "in the wild", as opposed to code where people are
> trying to illustrate how it might be used. I supose my recollection
> could be faulty, but again I mean that "not once" literally.
small. I can imagine it in a test program, maybe testing a numerical
integration routine. I suppose I could even imagine adding it to
a test suite for an integration or minimization routine.
> That puts it in the category of things whose utility is so low that INot only is it still in the standard, but the bullet to indicate
> believe one is better off ignoring completely. If you do happen to know
> about the feature, pretend that you don't anyway. The only times you
> even need to know that the feature exists is when you are reading old
> codes.... or when you are explaining to someone why they should be
> ignoring the feature.
which functions can't be used as actual arguments is still there.
(Cos doesn't have one.)
> If there ever actually was a reason to pass a specific intrinsic as anFor real production, I agree. For a test program, and maybe for a
> actual argument in real production, I'd wrap the generic version in my
> own specific rather than use the standard one.
quality verification program, I might actually use it. (See how close
the numeric integral comes to the analytic value.)
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.