Skip to content

Conversation

@scivision
Copy link
Member

@scivision scivision commented Dec 30, 2019

I didn't see this discussed previously--

write(*,*)

is for printing to console. This makes it harder to recursively search files for where console output is given with special formatting etc.

I would kindly suggest to consider Fortran 77 standard print, which is identical at the assembly code level.

@scivision scivision changed the title Fortran 77 print instead of non-standard write(*,*) Fortran 77 print instead of write(*,*) Dec 30, 2019
@jacobwilliams
Copy link
Member

Is write(*,*) really nonstandard? I never knew that.

@scivision
Copy link
Member Author

yea I was wrong there, I was thinking in Fortran 2003 terms. In any case, I think the issue is over being able to find where non-stdout text is / is not being output, I have found it convenient to use print, which is identical from the compiler's perspective.

@milancurcic milancurcic self-requested a review December 30, 2019 21:28
Copy link
Member

@milancurcic milancurcic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine with me. For simple messages to stdout I prefer this form as well.

@jacobwilliams
Copy link
Member

how about using output_unit?

@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Dec 30, 2019

I also only use print, never write(*,*). +1 to merge.

@certik certik merged commit 985ea13 into fortran-lang:master Dec 30, 2019
@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Dec 30, 2019

@jacobwilliams are you thinking of something like this:

use iso_fortran_env, only: output_unit ... write (output_unit, *) ...

? That seems more complicated than just:

print *, ... 
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

4 participants