Hi all. Thanks for the help again. I ended up going with running it twice -- once for the final number of particles and second for the positions.
Sturla, given that this functionality is so standard dependent, I decided to ditch it. It works with my gfortran, but who knows with other machines and compilers. Paul, I also stick with .f90 for everything. Best, Casey On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Paul Anton Letnes < paul.anton.let...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4. juli 2012, at 02:23, Sturla Molden wrote: > > > Den 03.07.2012 20:38, skrev Casey W. Stark: > >> > >> Sturla, this is valid Fortran, but I agree it might just be a bad > >> idea. The Fortran 90/95 Explained book mentions this in the > >> allocatable dummy arguments section and has an example using an array > >> with allocatable, intent(out) in a subrountine. You can also see this > >> in the PDF linked from > >> http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Allocatable+enhancements. > > > > Ok, so it's valid Fortran 2003. I never came any longer than to Fortran > > 95 :-) Make sure any Fortran code using this have the extension .f03 -- > > not .f95 or .f90 -- or it might crash horribly. > > > > To be pedantic: to my knowledge, the common convention is .f for fixed and > .f for free form source code. As is stated in the link, "..the Fortran > standard itself does not define any extension..." > > http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/File+extensions > > As one example, ifort doesn't even want to read files with the .f95 > suffix. You'll have to pass it a flag stating that "yep, that's a fortran > file all right". > > I use the .f90 suffix everywhere, but maybe that's just me. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion