home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
- From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
- Subject: Re: Does your f77 compiler accepts this?
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.001710.24693@newshost.lanl.gov>
- Date: 26 Aug 92 00:17:10 GMT
- References: <2873@tansei1.tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <BURLEY.92Aug24145148@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1992Aug25.153937.26559@newshost.lanl.gov> <BtJyIM.1p2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Aug25.213754.7260@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
- Sender: news@newshost.lanl.gov
- Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
- Lines: 17
-
- In article <1992Aug25.213754.7260@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>, i2041101@rzphy1.rz.tu-bs.de (Paulini) writes:
- |> [...]
- |> (X,X) is a constant if 'X' is defined in a PARAMETER-declaration. Then
- |>
- |> WRITE (*,*) (X,X)
- |>
- |> is legal, otherwise not.
-
- Not quite. A complex constructor of the pattern `(a,b)' is legal only
- if `a' and `b' are *both* literals. Yes, the extension of allowing them
- to be variables (or at least parameters) is desirable, but the committee
- chose not to do so. This constraint is still in Fortran 90.
-
- Too bad, I thought the above statement should be legal too.
-
- --
- J. Giles
-