do
lineNumber = lineNumber + 1
end do
Is this an infinite loop in fortran? I'm not familiar with the syntax
Yes, this is valid a Fortran snippet, but I don't get the purpose of this.
Related
I'm very new at Fortran. I'm trying to compile this Fortran, I think 90??? Code. I'm using visual studio with the intel compiler.
The following code is giving me an error 5082. I have absolutely no idea why. Like literally no clue. Please, please help.
integer function Dub(n)
integer n
Dub = 2*n
return
end
program Subroutines
implicit none
! Variables
integer n
n = 5
! Body of Subroutines
write(*,*) n
Dub(n)
write(*,*) 'Press Enter to Exit'
read(*,*)
stop
end program Subroutines
In Fortran a call to a function, or a subroutine, must be part of a statement (or an initialization expression, but that's more advanced). name(argument[s]) by itself is not a statement, unlike some other languages such as C, C++ and Java. A function call must be in an expression, and a subroutine call must use the call keyword. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fortran/Fortran_procedures_and_functions for examples.
Changing that line of your program to n = Dub(n) would make it legal, but rather useless. That function does nothing except return a value, and your main program does nothing useful with the value returned. Generally you call a function because you want either a side effect from executing the function, or to use the returned value, or both.
Guys am working on a loop that accepts integers but I want the loop to break once I enter any non integer.I don't want the program to terminate, I just want the loop to break. How can I do that in C++?
You can use TryParse in an if statement to check the type of the input and break if TryParse returns false
I ran across this
for ( ; ; ) {}
A quick cursory search lead me nowhere in finding out what this means. It looks like another thread might be handling terminating this. Is this equivalent to 'while (TRUE) {}' ?
This is an infinite loop. Any of the three parts of a for loop (initialization, condition and increment) can be missing. Specifically, if the condition in a for loop is missing, it is treated as being true. So it is equivalent to while(1) { ... }.
Yes they are equivalent in functionalities.
It was a little while since I last programmed and I have seem to forgotten if it's acceptable to use an empty "for loop" for creating an infinite loop?
for(;;)
Currently I use this method in a program to make it repeatedly ask the user to enter two numeric values one for each double variable in the program. The programs then calls a function and calculates a sum of these two pairs of numbers.
To terminate the program i have "if" statements that check if the user input value is zero, If the value is zero the program terminates using an "Return 0;" argument.
The program checks each user input value if it's zero directly after the value has been assigned to the variable.
So to the real question: Is this a correct way to make my program do what i described? Or is there a more/better/accepted way of programming this?
And secondly is there anything wrong with use the "Return 0" argument the way i did in this program?
If you thinks it's hard to understand what I'll wrote or meant please reply, and I will take more time to write everything.
What you're doing is perfectly fine, and an idiomatic way of writing and exiting an infinite loop.
I always use while(true) for infinite loops
I've seen this in a few places:
#define forever for(;;)
forever {
}
Not sure I'd recommend it though.
for(;;) as well as while(1) both are acceptable. These are just conditional loops provided by the language and you can use them to have a infinite running loop as per your requirement.
This is valid, you can go ahead with your code.
Yes, it's totally acceptable. Once you have an exit condition (break or return) in a loop you can make the loop "infinite" in the loop statement - you just move the exit condition from the loop statement into the loop body. If that makes the program more readable you of course can do that.
For an infinte loop for (;;) is fairly common practice. But if you do have a condition, such a non-zero user input, you could always have that check done in a while loop.
You can also use while loop with condition to repeatedly request user to input.
while (condition) {
...
}
Instead of IF block to validation you can use the .
What you describe will work fine, but it is worth mentioning that certain strict coding standards (i.e. MISRA) would disapprove of using a return before the end of a function.
If your code is subject to such standards then you could use do-while loop with a suitable exit condition instead:
do {
// get userinput
if (userinput != '0')
{
// do stuff
}
} while (userinput != '0');
I'm trying to get some code compiled under gfortran that compiles fine under g77. The problem seems to be from a return statement:
ffuncs.f:934.13:
RETURN E
1
Error: Alternate RETURN statement at (1) requires a SCALAR-INTEGER return specifier
In the code anything E was specified as real*8:
IMPLICIT REAL*8 ( A - H , O -Z )
However, E was never given a value or anything in fact you never see it until the return statement. I know almost nothing about fortran. What is the meaning of a return statement with an argument in fortran?
Thanks.
In FORTRAN (up to Fortran 77, which I'm very familiar with), RETURN n is not used to return a function value; instead, it does something like what in other languages would be handled by an exception: An exit to a code location other than the normal one.
You'd normally call such a SUBROUTINE or FUNCTION with labels as arguments, e.g.
CALL MYSUB(A, B, C, *998, *999)
...
998 STOP 'Error 1'
998 STOP 'Error 2'
and if things go wrong in MYSUB then you do RETURN 1 or RETURN 2 (rather than the normal RETURN) and you'd be hopping straight to label 998 or 999 in the calling routine.
That's why normally you want an integer on that RETURN - it's not a value but an index to which error exit you want to take.
RETURN E sounds wrong to me. Unless there's a syntax I'm unaware of, the previous compiler should have flagged that as an error.
In a Fortran function one returns the value, by assigning the value to a fake variable which is the same name as the function. Once you do that, simply return.
I think #Carl Smotricz has the answer. Does argument list of ffuncs has dummy arguments that are asterisks (to match the asterisk-label in the calls)? Or was this used without there being alternative returns? If there were no alternative returns, just delete the "E". If there are alternative returns, the big question is what the program was doing before at run time since the variable was of the wrong type and uninitialized. If the variable didn't have an integer value matching one of the expected branches, perhaps the program took the regular return branch -- but that's just a guess -- if so, the easy fix is to again to delete the "E".
The "alternate return" feature is considered "obsolescent" by the language standard and could be deleted in a future standard; compilers would likely continue to support it if it were removed because of legacy code. For new code, one simple alternative is to return an integer status variable and use a "select case" statement in the caller.