f2003 or F2003 ?
in [Fortran]
|
From: FX on 11 Apr 2008 11:42 > Differentiating between upper and lower case is definitely > objectionable. And yet, it is common practice. > My file types are always lower case and do require preprocessing. I > assume there are override options. I quote myself: "that can of course be overridden by compiler options." -- FX
From: Gary Scott on 11 Apr 2008 13:08 FX wrote: >>Differentiating between upper and lower case is definitely >>objectionable. > > > And yet, it is common practice. It seems reverse logic. I would have though upper case names would not be preprocessed since the most common naming convention on very old "pre-pre-processing" systems was to use upper case. Modern convention is mostly to use lower case (or mixed case), so it would seem more logical to me that the "modern" naming convention should be the one that is preprocessed. > > >>My file types are always lower case and do require preprocessing. I >>assume there are override options. > > > I quote myself: "that can of course be overridden by compiler options." > sorry, missed that -- Gary Scott mailto:garylscott(a)sbcglobal dot net Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done. -- Henry Ford
From: Paul van Delst on 11 Apr 2008 15:53 Gary Scott wrote: > FX wrote: > >>> Differentiating between upper and lower case is definitely >>> objectionable. >> >> >> And yet, it is common practice. > > It seems reverse logic. I would have though upper case names would not > be preprocessed since the most common naming convention on very old > "pre-pre-processing" systems was to use upper case. Modern convention > is mostly to use lower case (or mixed case), so it would seem more > logical to me that the "modern" naming convention should be the one that > is preprocessed. I'm a *nix-only guy (since '91 at least; VMS before that) so, fwiw, capital lettered extensions on the *nix systems I've used have always implied that preprocessing is to be done by default. E.g. "make -p" output, under the "Implicit Rules" output: %.f: %.F # commands to execute (built-in): $(PREPROCESS.F) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $< cheers, paulv
From: Gary Scott on 11 Apr 2008 16:17 Paul van Delst wrote: > Gary Scott wrote: > >> FX wrote: >> >>>> Differentiating between upper and lower case is definitely >>>> objectionable. >>> >>> >>> >>> And yet, it is common practice. >> >> >> It seems reverse logic. I would have though upper case names would >> not be preprocessed since the most common naming convention on very >> old "pre-pre-processing" systems was to use upper case. Modern >> convention is mostly to use lower case (or mixed case), so it would >> seem more logical to me that the "modern" naming convention should be >> the one that is preprocessed. > > > I'm a *nix-only guy (since '91 at least; VMS before that) so, fwiw, > capital lettered extensions on the *nix systems I've used have always > implied that preprocessing is to be done by default. > > E.g. "make -p" output, under the "Implicit Rules" output: > > %.f: %.F > # commands to execute (built-in): > $(PREPROCESS.F) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $< > Just a unix convention though. No reason for that to be the standard bearer. > cheers, > > paulv -- Gary Scott mailto:garylscott(a)sbcglobal dot net Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done. -- Henry Ford
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Write to file: need a variable format specifier Next: Doubt about formula transcription |