Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: intrinsic functions, math operators (was: i++, i+=1, i=i+1)
Message-ID: <3823@lanl.gov>
Date: 20 Sep 88 18:30:29 GMT
References: <13635@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 21

From article <13635@mimsy.UUCP>, by chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek):
>>... the syntax for mathemetical operations in a programming language
>>should be as close as possible to the syntax used by the target user
>>community for those same operations.
> 
> I would suggest `^', which not only looks like `go up', but also exists

Unfortunately, it did _not_ exist on the old 026 keypunches - and _THAT'S_
the origin of the Fortran character set constraints.  I agree, `^' is
a much better choice.  It just wasn't here when it was needed.  `**' was
chosen as a rather obvious lesser_of_many_evils - it at least suggests
_something_ to do with multiplication (which is how most people regard
exponentiation).

> why Fortran does not have a syntax for min and max operators....)

Suggest a standard mathematical notation for min and max which most
potential users are familiar with - I wouldn't oppose including it.

J. Giles
Los Alamos