Due to the current gap in continued funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the NSF Unidata Program Center has temporarily paused most operations. See NSF Unidata Pause in Most Operations for details.
Due to the current gap in continued funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the NSF Unidata Program Center has temporarily paused most operations. See NSF Unidata Pause in Most Operations for details.
Thomas Orgis wrote:
Am Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:15:53 -0600
OT a bit, so apologies...
Hm, I am already a very "progressive" Fortran user by starting with Fortran 90 and parts of the Fortran 95 extensions (though, I had to learn that forall loops are a bad idea, generally).
Well the forall construct is primarily meant for assignment, not looping in the traditional Fortran sense.
And even there I learned to stay clear of not thought-out stuff like subroutines as dummy arguments. Suggesting to folks that one should use Fortran 2003 seriously would get me suspicious looks and the occasional laugh, half stuck in the throat. But I feel a frustrated slipping through... so, eh... I better stop.
Yes. :o)
Still, I fail to see a reason for the Fortran 2003 standard not specifying Fortran/Fortran interoperability. Strange world.
The Fortran standard does not specify things outside the purview of a Fortran program unit (which has a very specific definition). Interoperability at the .mod, or .o, file level is not a Fortran *language* issue. It's an implementation detail. I agree it would be nice if all compilers (of whatever language) everywhere produced compatible output regardless of vendor or OS... but do you really want the Fortran language standard committee to address that issue? (Not that they couldn't make a good attempt, they're a sharp lot, but you get the idea).
cheers, paulv
netcdfgroup archives: