Re: Shortcut logicals (was: Re: F200x )

["James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net>]

"James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:i9BLd.316$xR1.179@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Now, not only do I find this confusing, I'm sure it will hide latent
> errors in the code of others.  Requiring parentheses or using a
> function-call notation eliminates all ambiguities.  Making the new
> operators lower precedence than everything else helps a little.

Jeez, it took me so much time to punch all that stuff from the
standard in and you didn't even bother to read it.  Precedence
has nothing to do with the question of whether cond4 is evaluated
in your original expression.  Hint: suppose cond4 has rank 1 and
all others are scalar.  Same thing happens in WHERE except that
the question is: how do you do shape matching unless you get
far enough through an expression to determine its shape even
though the mask it will be subjected to is all false?

-- 
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end