On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 01:24:29PM +0200, Arjen Markus wrote:
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?
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 in
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 f95 example
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 of kind plflt,
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 f95
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:18:30PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
I tested the fortran 95 results against the corresponding C results using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for LIST in `ls x??f95.psc |sed 's?f95.psc??'`; do echo
$LIST; diff ${LIST}c.psc ${LIST}f95.psc; done) |less
Most examples agreed
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:18:30PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
I tested the fortran 95 results against the corresponding C results using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for LIST in `ls x??f95.psc |sed 's?f95.psc??'`; do echo
$LIST; diff ${LIST}c.psc ${LIST}f95.psc; done) |less
Most examples agreed
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:33:05PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
On 2008-08-01 08:44+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:32:30PM +0100, Andrew Ross wrote:
I've been working on implementing plgfci and plsfci in the fortran
bindings, starting with f95. Unfortunately fortran does
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 in
Andrew Ross wrote:
I've been looking at implementing an example which uses plgfci / plsfci.
The most logical seems to be to replace calls to plfont in one or more
of the existing examples with the new functions. Comments in the source
suggest that is what users should do.
Unfortunately the way
On 2008-03-11 12:29- Andrew Ross wrote:
I've been looking at implementing an example which uses plgfci / plsfci.
The most logical seems to be to replace calls to plfont in one or more
of the existing examples with the new functions. Comments in the source
suggest that is what users
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:32:35AM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
For others interested in this thread, the chief reference on our font
characterization system is
http://plplot.sourceforge.net/docbook-manual/plplot-html-5.9.0/characters.html#fci
I agree that that higher-level forms of
12 matches
Mail list logo
