On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:51:21PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 18.10.24 um 19:11 schrieb Thomas Koenig:
> > Hello world,
> >
> > I am thinking how to add UNSIGNED to the documentation of the
> > intrinsics. Taking BGT, the alphabetically first one, one
> > could
>
> ... send the e-mail too early.
>
> What I had in mind was something like
>
> @node BGT
> @section @code{BGT} --- Bitwise greater than
> @fnindex BGT
> @cindex bitwise comparison
>
> @table @asis
> @item @emph{Description}:
> Determines whether an integral is a bitwise greater than another.
>
> @item @emph{Standard}:
> Fortran 2008 and later, extension for @code{UNSIGNED}
I wonder if a cross reference to the description to
"Unsigned integers" should go here. Can't remember the
texinfo command, perhaps, @ref{Unsigned integers}.
> @item @emph{Class}:
> Elemental function
>
> @item @emph{Syntax}:
> @code{RESULT = BGT(I, J)}
>
> @item @emph{Arguments}:
> @multitable @columnfractions .15 .70
> @item @var{I} @tab Shall be of @code{INTEGER} or @codde{UNSIGNED} type.
s/codde/code
> @item @var{J} @tab Shall be of the same type and of the same kind
> as @var{I}.
> @end multitable
>
> @item @emph{Return value}:
> The return value is of type @code{LOGICAL} and of the default kind.
>
> @item @emph{Note}:
> For @code{UNSIGNED}, this function is identical to the @code{.GT.}
> and @code{>} operators.
>
> ...
>
> As UNSIGNED has been booted off the F202Y list, I think calling it
> an extension at this time is fair.
>
> What do you think?
Looks good to me. And yes, calling it an extension is fair.
--
Steve
