Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!exodus-bb!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Is this a "feature"? Message-ID: Date: 24 May 91 02:09:27 GMT References: <1991May23.160841.402@ac.dal.ca> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 34 In-reply-to: scrutton@ac.dal.ca's message of 23 May 91 19:08:41 GMT In article <1991May23.160841.402@ac.dal.ca> scrutton@ac.dal.ca writes: I'd like to find out if the SAVE statement existed in FORTRAN IV I don't have a copy of the old standard (IV wasn't the formal name of the standard, but was widely employed anyway). Looking at some old vendor manuals (DG, UNIVAC) I believe the answer is no. That doesn't mean that static allocation was required, it means that like many other things, it was merely undefined. statement and depends on static allocation. Every compiler I've tried will let you get away with referencing local variables assigned in previous calls to that routine so it's either a standard `feature' or part of the standard. It doesn't work on all machines. Never did. However, it works on the majority of machines. I've also run across a DECODE statement which appears to be a precursor to the (what's it called...) It was a common extension, not part of the standard (old nor new). We call this "internal i/o" in '77 on. Many compilers continue to support the old "spellings" but application writers really should purge them from their programs. I've been the "wrong" way to spell things for portability for a long time now (ok I'm young, I still think a decade is a long time). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043