Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!ljm From: LJM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Len Moss) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: LABEL data type (Was: integer variable format address) Message-ID: <91067.103349LJM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 8 Mar 91 18:33:49 GMT References: <31132@shamash.cdc.com> <214949.21497@timbuk.cray.com> <17077@lanl.gov> Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Lines: 36 In article <17077@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) says: > >From article <214949.21497@timbuk.cray.com>, by wws@raphael.cray.com (Walter >Spector): >> [...] Maybe what's needed is a pair of >> setjmp/longjmp intrinsic routines. > >No. That leads to as many problems as it solves. What's really >needed is a well designed exception handling mechanism. I agree. At one point, Fortran 90 (well, 8x at the time) even contained what I considered to be a very well-designed exception handling mechanism, but it was removed in the interest of "reducing the size of the language". At the time, X3J3 talked about eventually publishing such features in a "Fortran Journal of Development" as suggested extensions. Maybe now that Fortran 90 is just about done X3J3 will follow through on this idea. [Stuff omitted.] > >Frankly, I think that the trend to avoid labels and jumps altogether >is a better way to go. I don't think that any language is really >complete without a GOTO, but as time goes on it may be less and >less of an issue. Perhaps the sign of a really good language is one which contains a GOTO which no programmer ever uses ;-) > >J. Giles -- Leonard J. Moss | My views don't necessarily Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Bin 97 | reflect those of SLAC, Stanford, CA 94309 | Stanford or the DOE