Fortran 77

I just happened upon the the footnote on page 187 of the Pickaxe book
about how RDoc can document Fortran 77. Does Dave T. write a lot
of Fortran code?

I had to ask.

On Aug 9, 2006, at 22:32, Chris G. wrote:

I just happened upon the the footnote on page 187 of the Pickaxe
book about how RDoc can document Fortran 77. Does Dave T. write
a lot of Fortran code?

No, but the NASA folks do, and they submitted a patch :slight_smile:

Dave

Dave T. wrote:

Dave
NASA still uses FORTRAN 77? Man, that’s frightening … does their
patch work with the “new” dialects like 90 and 95?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Dave
NASA still uses FORTRAN 77? Man, that’s frightening … does their patch
work with the “new” dialects like 90 and 95?

so do we - TONS. the thing with g77 compiled code, however, is that the
abi
is available to ruby/dl - this is no small advantage over f90 because i
allows
one to only write routines in fortran - no top level code.

-a

Chris G. wrote:

I just happened upon the the footnote on page 187 of the Pickaxe book
about how RDoc can document Fortran 77. Does Dave T. write a lot of
Fortran code?

Actually my officemate and I hacked that crude Fortran/90/ parser
into RDoc one afternoon (100 LOC, fragile regexps) and Dave accepted
it into the fold.

Our group never really found much use for it, and so we didn’t
pursue developing it. The GFD Dennou Club, however, has created
a (robust, polished) version that I believe Ryan D. is trying
to work into core or split out as a gem – see

http://dennou-h.gfd-dennou.org/library/dcmodel/doc/rdoc-dennou/

Later,

On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Bil K. wrote:

Actually my officemate and I hacked that crude Fortran/90/ parser
into RDoc one afternoon (100 LOC, fragile regexps) and Dave accepted
it into the fold.

Our group never really found much use for it, and so we didn’t
pursue developing it. The GFD Dennou Club, however, has created
a (robust, polished) version that I believe Ryan D. is trying
to work into core or split out as a gem – see

Thanks for the explanation. It does make sense now.


For blocks are better cleft with wedges,
Than tools of sharp or subtle edges,
And dullest nonsense has been found
By some to be the most profound.
-Samuel Butler,

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs