I would like to read a sequence of integer in a line with unknown bound in FORTRAN. My question is similar to the following previous post,
Reading a file of lists of in
There are probably many ways to do this, and the following is one such example. Here, the split() makes multiple trials for list-directed input for all values in the line, until non-numeric characters or the end of line is encountered.
subroutine split( line, vals, n )
implicit none
character(*), intent(in) :: line
real*8 :: vals(*), buf( 10000 )
integer :: n
n = 1
do
read( line, *, end=100, err=100 ) buf( 1 : n ) !! (See Appendix for why buf is used here)
val( 1:n ) = buf( 1:n )
n = n + 1
enddo
100 continue
n = n - 1
end
program main
implicit none
character(200) :: line
real*8 :: vals( 10000 )
integer :: n
open( 10, file="test.dat", status="old" )
do
read( 10, "(a)", end=500 ) line
call split( line, vals, n )
if ( n == 0 ) then
print *, "comment line"
else
print *, nint( vals( 1 : n ) )
endif
enddo
500 continue
close( 10 )
end
If test.dat contains the whole lines in the Question, plus the following lines
# additional data
1,2,3 , 4 , 5 # comma-separated integers
1.23e2 -4.56e2 , 777 # integer/floating-point mixed case
it gives
comment line
5 7 8 9 10 13
93 102 92
105 107 110 145 147 112
97 98
12 54 55
15 17 21 23 45
43 47 48 51 62
comment line
1 2 3 4 5
123 -456 777
So one can save the result for each line by copying the values in vals(1:n) to a desired array.
[ Appendix (thanks to @francescalus) ] In the above code, the data are read once into buf(1:n) and then copied to val(1:n). One might think that it would be more direct to read in the data into val(1:n) such that
read( line, *, end=100, err=100 ) val( 1 : n )
However, this direct approach is not recommended because val(1:n) becomes undefined when the read statement hits the "end" or "err" condition. Although ifort and gfortran seem to retain the data in val(1:n) even when that condition is met (and so they work even with the direct approach), the same behavior cannot be guaranteed for other compilers. In contrast, the buffer approach avoids this risk by saving the data one step before to val(1:n), so that undefined data are not used. This is why the buffer approach is used in the above code despite it is one statement longer.
Something like this might satisfy your requirements
INTEGER :: ix, rdstat
INTEGER, DIMENSION(6) :: nums
CHARACTER(len=128) :: aline
...
OPEN(21,file='data.txt')
DO ix = 1,10
READ(21,'(a)',iostat=rdstat) aline
IF (rdstat/=0) catch_errors()
nums = -99 ! a guard
READ(aline,*,iostat=rdstat) nums
IF (rdstat/=0) catch_errors()
! do something with nums
END DO
CLOSE(21)
I haven't thoroughly tested this and I haven't written catch_errors
for you -- in practice you may not want to do very much. This first version is probably too brittle, but whether it's suitable or not depends heavily on the uniformity (or otherwise) of the input files.
The strategy is to read each line into a character variable (one long enough for the entire line) and then to use internal, list-directed, reading to read 6 integers from the start of the character variable. This takes advantage of the in-built facility that list-directed input has of finding integers in an input stream with spaces separating values. The approach should work as well with a comma-separated list of integers. The internal read only looks for 6 integers, then catches the error when either no more integers are found, or only material which cannot be interpreted as integers (such as strings like # comment
).
Note
do/while
loop.nums
is filled with -99
at each element; this is a 'guard'. If -99
is likely to occur in your input files you may want to change this.nums
once you have them.