Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:745 comp.lang.c:10689 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!ncar!boulder!tramp!swarbric From: swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C? Message-ID: <6552@sigi.Colorado.EDU> Date: 9 Jun 88 06:45:19 GMT References: <10655@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1857@hubcap.UUCP> <10681@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) Organization: Beautiful Boulder By The Bay Lines: 21 (I am really wondering if this belongs in comp.lang.fortran at all, but I am not sure if Jerry Berkman reads comp.lang.c. Sorry.) Anyway, just because your outdated compiler doesn't compile x = +5 means only that your compiler is outdated... Or maybe even buggy, as it should not really think it means x =+ 5. And indeed, it doesn't, as it gave you a syntax error instead of a warning saying you never initialized x. Or maybe C used to not accept this format; I don't know. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing that it's good that FORTRAN can generate differnt things for x = abs(x) depending on whether or not x is float, int, or whatever. It's just in C the compiler does not know what a function looks like. They are just black boxes with a few restrictions. C was made this way for a reason, and I like it. FORTRAN is different for a reason, and that's fine too. (Oh, by the way, if x is float or double use x = fabs(x);) Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU ...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric "...This spells out freedom, it means nothing to me, as long as there's a PMRC"