Karl Glazebrook wrote: > OK then that sounds like a good plan! > > You'd have to look at the f2c output and see what other stuff might be > called. Given that SLATEC has not been modified in years it's a nice > case of only having to do it once.
Also, I don't believe the PDL slatec is the whole slatec which is quite a bit larger in routines, from what I remember the time I looked. --Chris > Karl > > > > On 12/11/2009, at 10:43 AM, Chris Marshall wrote: > >>> >>> I'd much rather see a quick and less than perfect stab at it (not >>> that I would have time to contribute much). >> >> I think the slatec f2c conversion would not take much work >> since with less than 20 lines of IO to worry about, I think >> hand replacing with C printf et. al. should not be too >> onerous to implement. >> >> --Chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.60/2496 - Release Date: 11/11/09 > 07:40:00 > _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
