[petsc-users] Question regarding updating PETSc Fortran examples to embrace post F77 constructs

[Barry Smith]

> On Aug 27, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
>> 
>>   PETSc users,
>> 
>>    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. 
>> 
>>   Is it time to forgo these constructs and use more modern Fortran conventions in all our examples?
>> 
>>    Any feedback is appreciated
>> 
>>    Barry
>> 
>> Note: it would continue to be possible to use PETSc in the FORTRAN 77 style, this is just a question about updating the examples.
> 
> Well - if we don't have examples in the "FORTRAN 77 style" - then that
> mode won't get tested - and users code [that might use this mode] are
> likely to break.. [due to changes in includes..]

  Satish,

  Sure we'd have to keep a couple of F77. 

   BTW: you don't have to approve the pets-announce responses; since they come to us we know what people say, no reason to spam the world with them.

  Barry

> 
> Satish