Hi Brad,
Yes, that is what I'm looking into now. Also wagering that many of the
Fortran arrays are now unused/irrelevant too.
I have a long history of being terrified by our legacy Fortran code here,
so sometimes takes me a while to get past that.
Thanks for the suggestion.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:53 AM Brad Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
In rewriting to Chapel, could you just defer the declarations of the
> arrays until the point in the Fortran code where the dynamic allocations
> take place? While I understand the desire for a 1:1 translation, for a
> pattern that's (in my opinion) as ugly as this in Fortran, you'd just be
> unnecessarily propagating that ugliness into the future if you keep it
> split between two lines like this... (and I'm guessing that nothing much
> is done with the array until it is allocated, which would suggest that
> making the second location the declaration point in Chapel shouldn't break
> anything?)
>
> Just a thought (I haven't wrestled through your code that much),
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Chapel-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
