Re: P1788 input/output
Bill
On 2013 Jul 20, at 16:37, G. William (Bill) Walster wrote:
> Regarding I/O and literals, given that Fortran remains the language primarily devoted to numerically intense computing and clearly the language with the most elaborate and flexible I/O syntax and semantics, might it be worthwhile to consider its latest standard in addition to C and C++'s?
Definitely a good idea. Volunteers to do it?
However, the I/O and literals design is fairly language-independent, except for my recent half-baked idea of how the cs conversion specifier might be designed, which is in the C fprintf style. Would you show us some ways in which Fortran-style I/O has advantages for intervals? Implied DOs in I/O are one brilliant feature that is fairly unique to Fortran, but I'm not sure that's relevant to intervals as such.
John Pryce