Re: C vs. fortran
beliavsky_at_aol.com
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: headcrash: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Previous message: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: Help needed for a sorting code in the literature"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 1 Jan 2005 16:42:11 -0800
>It is true that unadorned C doesn't have built-in
>matrix operators. I addressed that in another
>posting. If you need them they can be provided
>through preprocessing or by using C++ which
>allows user-defined objects to work with built-in
>operators. There is a limit to such facilities,
>however. Suppose I wanted the outer product of
>two vectors. Would I write A*B ? My bet is that
>that would have been defined as the inner product.
>How about the wedge product: A^B ? Most likely
>you end up having to use function notation anyway
In Fortran 90/95 you can define operators, so that
A .out. B
could represent the outer product of A and B. One does not need to use
function notation.
MATRAN at http://www.cs.umd.edu/~stewart/matran/Matran.html , an F95
program, does this kind of thing.
- Next message: headcrash: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Previous message: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: Help needed for a sorting code in the literature"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: C vs. fortran"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]