Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!shamash!timbuk!raphael!wws
From: wws@raphael.cray.com (Walter Spector)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Carriage control characters
Message-ID: <141240.2451@timbuk.cray.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 20:07:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: timbuk.141240.2451
References: <280c1ad4@ThreeL.co.uk>
Reply-To: wws@raphael.cray.com (Walter Spector)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <280c1ad4@ThreeL.co.uk>, jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher) writes:
|> trevor@ccc.govt.nz writes:
|> 
|> > Direct cursor addressing isn't standard Fortran. (Fortran carriage-controls for
|> > printers IS standard, but we have one printer that doesn't recognise them...)
|> 
|> Well, sort of.  What the standard says is that carriage control charcters
|> are recognised when you are *printing*.  And it defines *printing* to mean
|> "The transfer of information in a formatted record to certain devices
|> determined by the processor".

Does anyone see the need to have carraige control maintained in
the Fortran Standard?  There *is* a seperate ANSI Standard for
Carraige Control which has existed for years - far more detailed
than what is in the Fortran Standard.  The notion of carraige control
is hopelessly outdated these days.

What do netters think?  Should the F90 committee have removed carraige
control from the Standard?  Is this something they should do 'the next
time around'?

Walt

-- 
Walt Spector
(wws@renaissance.cray.com)                       "Parity is for farmers"
Sunnyvale, California                                    - Seymour Cray
_._ _._ _.... _. ._.