Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2001
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2001

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Fw: FORTRAN style, not OK?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg26823] Re: Fw: FORTRAN style, not OK?
  • From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:13:06 -0500 (EST)
  • Organization: Universitaet Leipzig
  • References: <94m96g$3nd@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hi,

I have found thousend of cases, where the FORTRAN syntax does not work,
EQUVALENCE, COMMON, DATA ... perherps it happens because Mathematica
has it's own programming language that is closer to LISP than to
FORTRAN.

v-=c

will work for you but unfortunatly it is C-like and you can't use it...

You final goal should be to avoid stupid Do[] loops. I'm using
Mathematica for all most everything in my computations but
I have never need a Do[]/For[]-loop, seldom a While[] ...

Regards
  Jens

PS: Mathematica seems to ignore the FORTRAN-line continuation in the
6-th column. The comment character in the first column does also not
work it is a shame ;-)

"Toshiyuki (Toshi) Meshii" wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I found out a case in which I cannot directly use FORTRAN statement in
> Mathematica programming.
> Here is the case good in FORTRAN.
> 
> v=v-c
> 
> However in Mathematica, it seems that I have to use a trick like this.
> 
> temp=v;
> v=temp-c
> 
> Is there more smart way for doing the above?
> Please let me know.
> ___________________________________
> The final goal for me is to do the following.
> 
> Do[
>  Do[
>       v[i][j][k] = v[i][j][k] - va[j]
>       ,{j, 3}]
>     ,{k, 100}];
> 
> -Toshi


  • Prev by Date: Re: reference
  • Next by Date: Re: Rewriting of Trigonometric Functions
  • Previous by thread: Re: FORTRAN style, not OK?
  • Next by thread: Re: FORTRAN style, not OK?