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