Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Is this a "feature"?
Message-ID: <5940@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 24 May 91 03:46:27 GMT
References: <1991May23.160841.402@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 24

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 (66).
No.

> I've come across some old (stylistically) code which doesn't use the
> 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 was quite common, but it has _never_ been portable.
I had some remarkably painful experiences trying to convert code that
did that kind of thing.  I'd been programming in Fortran for about 5
years before I met a compiler where this kind of botchery "worked".
When Fortran 77 added the SAVE statement it became straightforward to
fix old broken shockingly designed code of this sort.

> I've also run across a DECODE statement which appears to be a precursor
> to the (what's it called...) I/O using character variables as file units.
> Is this yet another 66ism?
No.  It was quite a common extension, but not universal.

-- 
I rejoiced that at least So-and-So could spell "hierarchical",
but the _real_ explanation was that he couldn't spell "heir".	-me