Re: P1788 input/output
John et al,
On 07/20/2013 02:58 PM, John Pryce wrote:
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?
Yes. However the point that we should "put our money where our mouth
is" is well
taken. I would volunteer if I could figure out a way to double my
internal clock rate
or clone myself.
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
I like "language independent" in our context.
Baker
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------