> On Aug 27, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> PETSc users, >> >> We've always been very conservative in PETSc to keep almost all our >> Fortran examples in a format that works with classic FORTRAN 77 constructs: >> fixed line format, (72 character limit) and no use of ; to separate >> operations on the same line, etc. >> >> Is it time to forgo these constructs and use more modern Fortran >> conventions in all our examples? >> >> Any feedback is appreciated >> >> Barry >> >> Note: it would continue to be possible to use PETSc in the FORTRAN 77 style, >> this is just a question about updating the examples. > > Well - if we don't have examples in the "FORTRAN 77 style" - then that > mode won't get tested - and users code [that might use this mode] are > likely to break.. [due to changes in includes..]
Satish, Sure we'd have to keep a couple of F77. BTW: you don't have to approve the pets-announce responses; since they come to us we know what people say, no reason to spam the world with them. Barry > > Satish
