Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

Re^2: Hints Towards Writing a Module with New Operators

by swampyankee (Parson)
on Dec 20, 2009 at 23:14 UTC ( #813654=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Hints Towards Writing a Module with New Operators
in thread Hints Towards Writing a Module with New Operators

Considering .EQV. as == for booleans is more or less correct: a .eqv. b is true if a and b are either both true or both false, and it would result in false otherwise. Most modern Fortran compilers will squawk if either a or b isn't a boolean (Fortran logical), so a fragment like

logical boole integer int int = 42 boole = .TRUE. write(*,*) 'is int .eqv. boole true?', int .eqv. boole
will cause a compile-time error, which is, on the whole, probably a good thing. As I said in my original post, I've been programming Fortran for quite a few years and never found a use for .eqv. or .neqv.. As an aside, Fortran is insensitive to case; I tend to use uppercase for Fortran keywords and lowercase for everything else.

Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting. — emc

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://813654]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (8)
As of 2016-10-26 09:58 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How many different varieties (color, size, etc) of socks do you have in your sock drawer?

    Results (338 votes). Check out past polls.