| Nick Maclaren 2006-10-30, 7:15 pm |
|
In article <4q8vtvFlqq0oU1@individual.net>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@not-mediasec.de> writes:
|> >
|> > |> But then, I'd rather not have Fortran definition (for some historical reasons)
|> > |> that you can actually consider a complex number as a structure of two reals of
|> > |> a certain defined arrangement. However, this has nothing to do with your ISA,
|> > |> but at what level of abstraction a programming language should be defined.
|> >
|> > And the context of this thread was my denial of the claim that the
|> > languages hide such issues from the programmer!
|>
|> I believe that most people think this is a deficiency in the standard which
|> cannot be changed for reasons of backward compatibility. If one were doing
|> the Fortran standard "froms scratch" today, such a detail would be left open
|> to the implementation, I'm sure.
For Fortran, I agree. But C and C++ did it deliberately, and with
the experience of Fortran as a guide.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
|