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..."
I assume you meant ".f for fixed and .f90 for free form" > > 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". Yep. > > I use the .f90 suffix everywhere, but maybe that's just me. Exactly, the same here. Ondrej _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
