From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,3354bcb01bfd8111
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bda36258b2fe9834
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:26:45 -0600
From: "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada
References: <41f94cab$1@news1.ethz.ch>
   <INfKd.13707$bh6.378409@weber.videotron.net>
   <nospam-6F7AE0.11340228012005@news.supernews.com>
   <lqjnv01969glk2mbv1plvjdn5idkb1c3db@4ax.com>
   <1107060103.157135.325010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <8u2pv0tdd9b1v689rtqc2c2tlm9pn9t1t6@4ax.com>
   <1107085125.849687.318060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <1107096062.786125.100030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <10vq094k09igv3c@corp.supernews.com>
   <eudLd.43724$8u5.37685@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <1107160100.162171.223490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <cTxLd.126318$w62.46060@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <xfKdnUflrtW3I2PcRVn-og@comcast.com>
 <rEzLd.68$xR1.54@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <ON-dnSQzGfXOVWPcRVn-1A@comcast.com>
 <mXzLd.100$xR1.94@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <OtidnVAKUaPWT2PcRVn-ig@comcast.com>
 <i9BLd.316$xR1.179@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Shortcut logicals (was: Re: F200x )
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:33:23 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
Message-ID: <Kc6dnWsfnrh4dWPcRVn-vA@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.8.173.150
X-Trace: 
 sv3-QdjOFOAVEpr3sTK3Gz9YU2lPpz2j3zMfzJXXou9S0daIjqGUTm75D2HSFRvSUjuDvzjpBFxoTYWlbmQ!KYktjf1LAjauD2hBt5laPVwJm/B0TDxm6Ykvpbj9jpVhhsZItS1K1m7ErP4SCQNVdLm5GQiSHw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.22
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.fortran:10029 comp.lang.ada:8094
Date: 2005-01-31T19:33:23-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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