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
 |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:43:07 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Sep 11 2012 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Intrinsic function for dp vs sp?
(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 because
There 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 > controversial. 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 archaic
Still, 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 recommend
Yes. 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 I
Not 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 an
For 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.) -- glen
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.
| |||||||||||||