<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><div style="direction: inherit;">FINALLY! Let's get rid of fortran77 free form in examples. <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I can't think of any reason to self inflict such a suffering. </span></div><div style="direction: inherit;"><br></div><div style="direction: inherit;">Are there ANY compiler around that people use and would not be able to process free form examples?I can see a point in keeping compatibility with fortran77 in petsc. It would make sense to keep a few old style pure f77 examples in the using-fortran section, but for the rest of the examples, using fixed form serves no purpose other than unexplicable bugs caused when a macro expands to more than 72 cols.</div><div style="direction: inherit;"><br></div><div style="direction: inherit;">Going farther, but it is a really un gratifying job that nobody wants to do, it would make sense of having fortran77 bindings through iso_c_binding. That would allow better argument type checking and debugging (I.e. Inspecting the content of a petsc object from the debugger in a fortran program). Would that prevent F77 interoperability? I am not sure. </div><div style="direction: inherit;"><br></div><div style="direction: inherit;">Blaise</div><br>Sent from a mobile device</div><div><br>On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Barry Smith <<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><br><span> PETSc users,</span><br><span></span><br><span> We've always been very conservative in PETSc to keep almost all our Fortran examples in a format that works with classic FORTRAN 77 constructs: fixed line format, (72 character limit) and no use of ; to separate operations on the same line, etc. </span><br><span></span><br><span> Is it time to forgo these constructs and use more modern Fortran conventions in all our examples?</span><br><span></span><br><span> Any feedback is appreciated</span><br><span></span><br><span> Barry</span><br><span></span><br><span>Note: it would continue to be possible to use PETSc in the FORTRAN 77 style, this is just a question about updating the examples.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>