Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <10997@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 25 Oct 89 03:16:45 GMT
References: <1989Oct17.203733.23121@utzoo.uucp> <14091@lanl.gov> <6591@ficc.uu.net> <1989Oct23.094426.4105@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: diamond@riks.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 21

In article <6591@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>>	I = RAND(very carefully designed seed)
>>	CALL HOOPY(RAND(0), RAND(0), RAND(0))
>>
>>Will this [FORTRAN] program produce the same output on different machines? 
>>Is this guaranteed?

In article <1989Oct23.094426.4105@gdt.bath.ac.uk> exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) writes:

>NO.  See section 6.6.2 of the Standard.  Why isn't this in the FORTRAN group?

Mr. da Silva's question concerns the relative defects of Fortran and C.
There is no comp.lang.c-vs-fortran, and no comp.lang.relative-defects.
Why is comp.lang.fortran more suitable than comp.lang.c?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".