Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ncar!tank!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical analysis
Message-ID: <13586@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 16 Sep 88 11:02:50 GMT
References: <13570@mimsy.UUCP> <3631@lanl.gov>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 22

>In article <13570@mimsy.UUCP> I wrote
>>Any time you use a single solution for two (or more) orthogonal
>>problems, you have missed out on some potential orthogonality.
[and I add back the line:]
Whether this orthogonality is in fact *useful* is another argument entirely.

In article <3631@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>This is true.  But if you omit a functionality completely simply because
>you don't want to overload some part of the syntax - you haven't done
>the users any favors either.  In fact, the parenthesis rule in Fortran
>is quite useful and is well understood by most programmers ....
>The lack of grouping for precision control would pose a _much_ more
>serious problem.

I agree.  Introducing temporary variables to force evaluation order
(required in `old C') is significantly inelegant.  This was a real
problem with `old C'.  I am just not sure I like the solution used
in the dpANS (and in FORTRAN and all those other languages).  Ah well,
time will tell how well it works.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris