source check
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: XLF V13.1 release for AIX -- fully compliant Fortran 2003 standard
Next: Matlab mexing with gfortran -- String handling.
From: user1 on 22 Apr 2010 06:54 Uno wrote: [snip] > > Here's my question: how do I traverse these structures to do the same > type of summing up the areas in the original post, with the added > wrinkle that their will also be this subtract component, which should > default to zero? > Now it's starting to sound like a C++ problem, but that's probably because I don't know much about Oop in Fortran. Btw: you would be the first carpenter I know of who uses Fortran :-)
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 22 Apr 2010 06:59 Uno <merrilljensen(a)q.com> wrote: (snip) > But there's something to be said for > implicit real (a-z) > , in particular that there isn't much difference between 42 the integer > and 42 the real. So I can have lines like the very readable > sqft = 144 I have also seen programs with IMPLICIT INTEGER (A-Z) for the case of no floating point at all. or, for some IBM compilers: IMPLICIT INTEGER (A-$) (the 27th letter of the alphabet) -- glen
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 21 Apr 2010 02:17 Ron Shepard <ron-shepard(a)nospam.comcast.net> wrote: > In article <hqkngl$h1l$1(a)naig.caltech.edu>, > glen herrmannsfeldt <gah(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> > Why not use a spreadsheet, then go ask in a different group ? >> Well, more specifically, it is unusual to write in Fortran >> a specific case to a general problem. > Not necessarily. If you need something that is in fortran, but not > in excel or some other language, then you would use fortran. A good > example of this is eigenvalue problems. Excel doesn't have any > eigenvalue routines built-in. I sometimes wish that it did, but it > doesn't. Unusual doesn't mean never. I suppose there are some "one of" eigenvalue problems that might need to be solved. Even so, it doesn't seem hard to have the program instead read in the matrix. That would allow the program to be used to solve future problems, even if none ever show up. The comment related to the "input data" being fixed in the program, instead of being read in. More generally, something like Mathematica, Matlab, or R, interpreted languages that I am sure all include an eigenvalue routine, might be appropriate. -- glen
From: Craig Powers on 23 Apr 2010 14:29 Gordon Sande wrote: > > I sure hope it is not one of the proposals that thinks the whole world is > just the SI units of physics. I like the way MathCAD does units. They have I think four basic classifications, you define your own base units off of those (e.g. kg := 1M; g := 0.001*kg), and then it will automatically do conversions for you as well as catching mismatched units. And it makes no implicit assumptions about your unit system, since you're the one who defines your units at the outset.
From: Gordon Sande on 23 Apr 2010 15:25
On 2010-04-23 15:29:00 -0300, Craig Powers <craig.powers(a)invalid.invalid> said: > Gordon Sande wrote: >> >> I sure hope it is not one of the proposals that thinks the whole world is >> just the SI units of physics. > > I like the way MathCAD does units. They have I think four basic > classifications, you define your own base units off of those > (e.g. kg := 1M; g := 0.001*kg), and then it will automatically do > conversions for you as well as catching mismatched units. And it makes > no implicit assumptions about your unit system, since you're the one > who defines your units at the outset. If one is doing other sorts of things, like say demography where fertility has units of person per person, then SI or whatever is not helful. Or try interest on a converted currency that is held referenced to a base year with a price index. One might say that SI gives one nouns but the real action is in the many adjectives that make the world useful. The point is that having the physics dimensions is inadequate whether they are in SI or any other system. There are errors beyond mixing length and weight when one should not. Or even just something like chemistry where one wants molar fractions by specie. According to SI those are just numbers but that is an example where an incomplete pretense at claiming correctness will be worse than no claim at all. In other situations this is said as "Bad security is worse that no security as some will be lulled into trusting it and become complacent and careless". |