Richard E Maine wrote:

(snip)

Can you have the same specific entry more than once, declared
with different ranks, something like:

INTERFACE SWITCH
SUBROUTINE SWITCHX (X)
INTEGER, INTENT (INOUT) :: X(*)
END SUBROUTINE SWITCHX

SUBROUTINE SWITCHX (X)
INTEGER, INTENT (INOUT) :: X(1,*)
END SUBROUTINE SWITCHX

Bernard Bru wrote:

Are you asking about facilities provided by most systems for redirecting
output sent to '*' (or, on many systems, unit 6 without an OPEN)?
For example, the tee program, or redirection using '>' on the command line?

Tim Prince wrote:

Sorry, perhaps I'm not so clear:

Some time I want to have at the same time output on screen (Unit 6 or *)
and onto a file (OPEN(8,FILE= 'sosout')
An an other time I want only output on file (here unit 8) (for me it is
easier to visualize the output using vim editor) So I put in this case
OPEN(6,FILE= 'NO') because I dont need it

It seems to me heavy to put in the code 2 WRITE's for each output!!!

WRITE(6,....................
WRITE(8, the same as above

bru wrote:

What about this:

integer, parameter :: USR_UNIT(2) = [6, 8]
integer i
logical StdOutput, FileOutput
real a, b, c

a = 1.; b = 2.; c = 3.

write(*, '("Std output? [T/F]: ")', ADVANCE = 'NO')
read(*, *) StdOutput

write(*, '("File? [T/F]: ")', ADVANCE = 'NO')
read(*, *) FileOutput

if (FileOutput) Open(unit = USR_UNIT(2), file = 'userfile.txt')

jwm wrote:

bru wrote:

Yes, It's a f2003 feature, sorry about that. Try using:

integer, parameter :: USR_UNIT(2) = (/ 6, 8 /)

Tim Prince wrote:

Your solution is good for me in the case I want to have results only on
a file.

In the other case I want to have results at the same time on the screen
and on a file!!

Thanks for your ansver

Bernard Bru

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:15:09 -0700, bru wrote
(in article ):

...

That's just because of the use of the [] for array constructors. That
is an f2003 feature adopted as an extension by some f95 compilers, but
you can't portably count on it in f95. But that is peripheral to the
question.

Yes. I'd agree that this is a bit much for most applications. It
requires too much structuring of the code around this particular I/O
requirement.

jwm wrote:

On 7/17/2006 8:15 AM, bru wrote:
[...snip example of selecting output units...]

In priniciple, you could generalize jwm's example to any number of
units/files, but isolate the multiple WRITE's to a subroutine you've
written, e.g., MY_WRITE, and then replace all the WRITE's with
MY_WRITE's in your code. Unfortunately in practice, that may be
quite difficult because of needing to pass a variable number of
arguments to MY_WRITE. Only if the number of different combinations
of format, argument number and argument types is fairly small would
this be feasible (presumably be using a generic feature to overload
the finite number of different versions...).

-Ken
--
I don't speak for Intel, Intel doesn't speak for me...