Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!jarthur!uunet!mcsun!unido!mpirbn!u502sou From: u502sou@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Ignatios Souvatzis) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Is this kosher? Message-ID: Date: 31 Jan 91 10:02:46 GMT References: <20773@hydra.gatech.EDU> <2796@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <20785@hydra.gatech.EDU> <2812@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <91030.132436KENCB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Sender: u502sou@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de Reply-To: u502sou@c1a Organization: /mnt0/u502sou/.organization Lines: 18 In-reply-to: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 31 Jan 91 00:04:26 GMT X-Checksum-Snefru: d3c71648 0a7e3f20 6c68010f e46d4c2e In article khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (chiba) writes: In general, a FORTRAN processor (x3.9-1978 compliant), may do anything it wants to with a non-standard compliant program. Similarly with vendor documents, the constraint is on the user to not write illegal (viz. code which violates the vendor's document) code. If you do, it MAY work. That isn't a bug. That's the BAD think about FORTRAN... most dangerous things are 'forbidden' by the manuals, but most of them pass the compiler... It's much fun to debug a program where you forgot a subroutine parameter... -- Paper mail: Ignatios Souvatzis, Radioastronomisches Institut der Universitaet Bonn, Auf dem Huegel 71, D-5300 Bonn 1, FRG Internet: u502sou@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de