Re: Doubt about formula transcription

Gordon Sande wrote:
> On 2008-04-07 18:11:48 -0300, "James Giles"
> <jamesgiles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>> Gordon Sande wrote:
>> ...
>>> The 2 would be converted by default but easier to make it real.
>>
>> "Easier" ?  Well, it remains more legible if left as an integer.
>> Unless integer divide is present, a literal whose value is integral
>> is usually better left as an integer literal in the first place. That
way 
>> if all the declarations of the symbols in the expression
>> change to double precision you still don't have to alter the
>> literals in the expression.
>
> As a language lawyer you are correct but for a beginner it is too
> confusing to know the arcane rules of local context for each
> subexpression. Simplicity for a beginner is to avoid subtle
> semantic traps.

The rule is fundamental.  And, it's simpler for everyone but the
most extreme beginner.

> Much as im****tant and urgent are diferent notions, clever and wise are
> different notions. Asking beginners to be clever is not always wise.

Yet the beginner of this thread obviously already grasped this
particular rule even though he didn't yet know the rules for
declaring PARAMETERs.  Meanwhile, forgetting to alter
float literals to match KIND is a mistake even long-time
expert users still make.  There is a long term advantage to
avoiding that problem.

-- 
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare