Fortran Vs C, C++, C#
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: practice online trading. platinum online trading. online trading worldwide. online trading which is best
Next: variant data type
From: blmblm on 10 Jul 2010 12:13 In article <5384e12f-0a8f-4f6f-8a80-77dc0e7e7d83(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Steven Correll <steven.correll(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > glen herrmannsfeldt <g...(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > I believe that C99 has variable dimension automatic arrays. > > I haven't tried them yet. > > > Ron Shepard <ron-shep...(a)nospam.comcast.net> wrote: > > Can you allocate these multidimensional arrays with malloc() (or > > some other library routine) in the same routine that they are used? > > Below is an example of a dynamically allocated C99 2D variable length > array using gcc. Cool -- I had no idea this was possible (as is apparent from my reply to Ron). I thought I'd made an attempt to educate myself about VLAs in C, but I guess I missed this aspect .... [ snip nice example ] -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: robin on 11 Jul 2010 22:09 "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig(a)netcologne.de> wrote in message news:i0nnf8$fb0$1(a)newsreader5.netcologne.de... | Phillip Helbig wrote: | > FORTRAN IV even had a Roman numeral. :-) | | The nice thing about Roman numbers is that you can't have a division by | zero error. Um, can you have division by anything?
From: mecej4 on 12 Jul 2010 08:34 Thomas Koenig wrote: > Phillip Helbig wrote: >> In article <i0hu98$ocp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, Jugoslav Dujic >><jdujic(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On 29.06.2010. 23:22, Colin Watters wrote: >>> > Here is an even more dated paper (1893) comparing Fortran and some >>> > other languages: >>> >>> Jeez, I didn't know Fortran is *THAT* old :o) >> >> FORTRAN IV even had a Roman numeral. :-) > > The nice thing about Roman numbers is that you can't have a division by > zero error. Zero is not part of the Roman number system -- it was not needed in a number system that did not use a polynomial expansion in terms of a small base. -- mecej4
From: mecej4 on 12 Jul 2010 08:35 Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > In article <i0hu98$ocp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, Jugoslav Dujic > <jdujic(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> On 29.06.2010. 23:22, Colin Watters wrote: >> > Here is an even more dated paper (1893) comparing Fortran and some >> > other languages: >> >> Jeez, I didn't know Fortran is *THAT* old :o) > > FORTRAN IV even had a Roman numeral. :-) FORTRAN IV is more suggestive of a general or a pope than a numeral. -- mecej4
From: jfh on 12 Jul 2010 17:23
On Jul 13, 12:35 am, mecej4 <mecej4.nyets...(a)operamail.com> wrote: > FORTRAN IV is more suggestive of a general or a pope than a numeral. A general?? What about a king or queen, or an American with the same name as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather? (Is FORTRAN III as obscure as Napoleon II?)y -- John Harper |