Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C? Message-ID: <8130@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: 21 Jun 88 12:19:09 GMT References: <2742@utastro.UUCP> <20008@beta.UUCP> <10655@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1171@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <20378@beta.lanl.gov> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 15 In article <20378@beta.lanl.gov> jlg@beta.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >The proposed ANSI standard for C has unary plus operators. Among other >uses, it can force ordering of expression evaluation. The famous case >where C doesn't evaluate a+(b+c) in any particular order is fixed by >doing a+ +(b+c). The unary plus forces the subexpression to be eval- >uated before adding the other constant. I'm afraid you're behind the times. There was so much public objection to this, and so much clamor for parentheses forcing order of evaluation, that this special property of unary plus was dropped from the proposed standard, and Fortran-like parentheses order forcing was adopted instead. >There really are things which are best done in Fortran. Fortunately not many really interesting things.