Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kornkven From: kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: A Question of Style Message-ID: <1991May21.140440.16964@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 21 May 91 14:04:40 GMT References: <12306@uwm.edu> Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Lines: 32 burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >In article <12306@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: > I have recently run into a FORTRAN compiler that exhibits, to my > mind, an annoying trait. It complains voiciferously about statement > numbers that are defined on statements, but are otherwise unreferenced. > In all my years of using FORTRAN compilers, this is the _only_ instance > of this behavior I have encountered. > * Is this trait good or bad? Desirable or undesirable? >It's bad. Undesirable. I disagree. Any help I get from a compiler to help me catch mistakes is appreciated and I would have to say that labels that are never referenced are very likely due to an error, at least in the programs I write. I see nothing at all harmful in pointing out this sort of possible error (like "lint" does). However... > * Is the inability to suppress this specific message good or bad? >Very bad. Really incredibly bad. True. When a suspicious construct is legal, the error message has got to be able to be turned off. Whether the message should be on or off by default is a matter of taste, it seems to me. Ed Kornkven kornkven@cs.uiuc.edu