On 2014-09-11 09:42- Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> I will get back to this. No time today to read it carefully. I see
no obvious flaws in our reasoning, but the devil is in the details.
Hi Arjen:
Normally this is true for most computer endeavours. but for this case
we don't have to get t
Hi Alan,
I will get back to this. No time today to read it carefully. I see no obvious
flaws in our reasoning, but the devil is in the details.
Regards,
Arjen
From: Alan W. Irwin [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:26 PM
To:
Hi Arjen:
On 2014-09-10 07:54- Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> By using the fixed number 4 you make a classical mistake: the kind
number is not related to the number of bytes that a value of the given
kind and type occupies in memory. For instance: years ago (before
Fortran 90 compilers wer
Hi Alan,
By using the fixed number 4 you make a classical mistake: the kind number is
not related to the number of bytes that a value of the given kind and type
occupies in memory. For instance: years ago (before Fortran 90 compilers were
common enough) I used a NEC computer that had two diff
On 2014-09-09 06:44- Arjen Markus wrote:
> As for the kinds of integers and logicals, I suggest:
>
>
>
> integer, parameter :: plint = kind(0) ! The default integer, which is in
> 99% of the cases a 4-bytes integer
> integer, parameter :: plbool = kind(.false.)
These are indefinite types,
