Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 02:23:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <vq33qi$11gfj$9@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
	<vpl5uk$hhk$3@reader1.panix.com> <vpl91g$25q46$1@dont-email.me>
	<1976765442.762208809.808387.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
	<20250225130315.00004e34@gmail.com> <lhqvP.1323465$if26.592741@fx13.iad>
	<1924764604.762215659.468999.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
	<ICydnfxPt7ZuOCP6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<mddmse88bug.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <vpseev$b5go$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<mMjwP.9$7xi4.1@fx43.iad> <vpss6r$brsl$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<87mse5zyn8.fsf@eder.anydns.info> <vpt7q7$3r2n0$2@dont-email.me>
	<20250228132017.00005dbb@gmail.com> <vptb6n$3r2n0$15@dont-email.me>
	<20250228140740.00007b4b@gmail.com> <vptdc8$3s11n$2@dont-email.me>
	<67c2cfbf$0$16850$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
	<oTqdnb3iAKQpel76nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<m2iil8FhsapU3@mid.individual.net> <vB5xP.126520$eNx6.84456@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 03:23:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8318619ef7755c5099152f31f53bfc60";
	logging-data="1098227"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+200xEcwrbH+hc1pkJuXNt"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1y7Y3isdERNOPPHitNRjzS7Bbvs=
Bytes: 2481

On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 23:12:27 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> When Canada went metric they blew gas mileage completely out of the
> water by turning the equation upside-down, changing from miles per
> gallon to litres per 100 km.  You can't just apply a simple conversion
> factor.

There is sense in doing it that way: it means higher numbers correspond to 
higher fuel consumption. And “fuel consumption” is the usual description 
for the figures being quoted, not typically “fuel economy”.

By the way, I’ve often thought that “litres per 100 km” is a bit of a 
mouthful. Easier to call it “cl/km” (centilitres per km), since the 
figures are exactly the same.