Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ags
From: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical analysis
Message-ID: <3537@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 4 Sep 88 02:24:42 GMT
References: <3535@s.cc.purdue.edu> <3183@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 15

In article <3183@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
 [I asked for an example of Fortran using associativity legally]
>You almost gave one yourself.  The expression A+B+C may be evaluated 
>as (A+B)+C, A+(B+C), or (A+C)+B.  Fortran is free to do the calculation
>in any of those orders.  

Well, ok, that's technically an application of associativity, but it's not
exactly what I had in mind.  The only reason you are allowed to write
A+B+C in the first place, rather than (A+B)+C or A+(B+C), is that you are
assuming associativity and therefore you are telling the compiler that it
doesn't matter.

-- 
Dave Seaman	  					
ags@j.cc.purdue.edu