anybody still use ratfor?
No. Well, I suppose it is possible you might find a soul or two
somewhere, but you'd have to look prety hard. Ratfor became essentially
obsolete with Fortran 77.
--
Richard Maine
email: last name at domain . net
domain: summer-triangle
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
e Fortran standard, but it isn't hard
to guess that he means a derived type that uses some of the OOP
features. Inheritance, polymorphism, and type-bound procedure (aka
methods in some other languages) come to mind. Since you say that you
haven't used any of the F2003 OOP features, it
James Van Buskirk wrote:
> "Richard Maine" wrote in message
> news:1j4y84p.v5docbtueccmn%nos...@see.signature...
>
> > One might plausibly regard this as a kludge, but it is a kludge that is
> > part of the Fortran standard and is guaranteed to work with all
tes back
to f77 when character type was introduced; f2003 just extends it to the
C character kind for the obscure case where the C character kind might
be different from the default character kind (I don't know of any
compilers where this is so, but the standard allows for it).
--
Richard Maine
old "soon"). Some other compilers are also getting there.
But there is just no way that most people have spent much time
developing with compilers that adequately supported the f2003 OOP
features.
(I'd cite my formal comment on f2008, and maybe David Muxworthy's r
sturlamolden wrote:
> On 24 Aug, 02:26, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > You missed the word "OOP", which seemed like the whole point. Not that
> > the particular word is used in the Fortran standard, but it isn't hard
> > to guess that he
