>
> I've been working on implementing plgfci and plsfci in the fortran
> bindings, starting with f95. Unfortunately fortran does not support
> unsigned integers so PLUNICODE has to be cast to an 64 bit integer in
> fortran. I've created a plunicode type, similar to plflt, to make this
> transparent
> On 2008-08-01 22:24+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> I also noticed the integer(16) and did not like it since in fortran 77 at
> least integer*8 would correspond to 64 bits and integer*16 to 128 bits.
> Arjen, do you know about this?
>
>> Can you test again with my fix and see what happens?
>
> The f9
> On 2008-08-05 09:59+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> A first initial look at the postscript shows differences even on the
>> first page, suggesting perhaps a slightly different random distribution
>> of numbers to start with. I've made a few of the constants in the
>> example explicitly o
>> On 2008-08-01 22:24+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>> I also noticed the integer(16) and did not like it since in fortran 77
>> at
>> least integer*8 would correspond to 64 bits and integer*16 to 128 bits.
>> Arjen, do you know about this?
>>
>>> Can you test again with my fix and see what happens?
