Moving forward is fine. One can always retain some fixed line examples
along side other non-fixed line examples.
-sanjay
On 8/26/16 7:54 PM, 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.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Govindjee, PhD, PE
Horace, Dorothy, and Katherine Johnson Endowed Chair in Engineering
779 Davis Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710
Voice: +1 510 642 6060
FAX: +1 510 643 5264
[email protected]
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~sanjay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Books:
Engineering Mechanics of Deformable
Solids: A Presentation with Exercises
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/MaterialsScience/?view=usa&ci=9780199651641
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199651641.do
http://amzn.com/0199651647
Engineering Mechanics 3 (Dynamics) 2nd Edition
http://www.springer.com/978-3-642-53711-0
http://amzn.com/3642537111
Engineering Mechanics 3, Supplementary Problems: Dynamics
http://www.amzn.com/B00SOXN8JU
-----------------------------------------------
