Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!bill From: bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Was: Re: length of a character string Message-ID: Date: 4 Oct 89 16:15:17 GMT References: <2490@ualtamts.BITNET> <125348@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <2494@ualtamts.BITNET> Sender: news@hcx1.UUCP Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division Lines: 30 In-reply-to: userAKDU@ualtamts.BITNET's message of 27 Sep 89 20:16:34 GMT > The answer is, that the PROMPT= keyword puts the ball in the o/s's court, > which has a much better chance to make the appropriate determination than > a Fortran program, regardless of whether the appropriate device is > connected to a Fortran I/O unit. What if one can't, you might ask -- well, > what does the standard say about how systems not using filenames are to > treat FILE= and NAME= keywords? One thing that seems to get missed in this (and other) debates is what is POSSIBLE in a standard. For instance, a previous article complained that non-advancing output didn't force the output to appear until end-of-record was written. Quite true, but then NEITHER DID PROMPT=!!!! The standard doesn't even have a way of talking about what it means for output to "appear". The real answer to all this is, "it is a quality of implementation issue". If your vendor implements non-advancing I/O in a stupid and useless way, then find another vendor. I'm sure there will be plenty who will do it the way all of us intend it to be, and in a way that works to the user's advantage. There are just some things you cannot say in a standard. Section Notes sometimes are used to tell implementors and users what was intended, but they aren't binding on anyone. Such is life... -- Bill Leonard Harris Computer Systems Division 2101 W. Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 bill@ssd.harris.com or hcx1!bill@uunet.uu.net