Re: Inline::Fortran
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:22:23 +0100, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:50:49AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: >> >> Why isn't there one? > > I suspect that no-one has needed it sufficiently to have a go at writing > it. Or more succintly: "because you haven't written it yet". :-) -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Inline::Fortran
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:50:49AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: > > Why isn't there one? I suspect that no-one has needed it sufficiently to have a go at writing it. Nicholas Clark
Re: Inline::Fortran
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:50:35 +0100 (BST), Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:50:49AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: >>> Why isn't there one? >> >> You can write Fortran in any language. (Just see the Numerical Recipes >> books' code examples if you don't believe me). > > and anyway, as far as I recall, f77 is just a preprocessor which produces C. No, g77 is a native code compiler. You're thinking of f2c. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Inline::Fortran
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:50:49AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: >> Why isn't there one? > > You can write Fortran in any language. (Just see the Numerical Recipes > books' code examples if you don't believe me). and anyway, as far as I recall, f77 is just a preprocessor which produces C. Dirk
Re: Inline::Fortran
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:50:49AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: > Why isn't there one? You can write Fortran in any language. (Just see the Numerical Recipes books' code examples if you don't believe me). -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
Inline::Fortran
Why isn't there one?
