Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!shenkin
From: shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Is this a "feature"?
Message-ID: <1991May24.160003.27752@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 24 May 91 16:00:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cunixf.1991May24.160003.27752
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 19

[[ Re:  SAVE ]]
In article <5940@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <1991May23.160841.402@ac.dal.ca>, scrutton@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>> 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...
>It was quite common, but it has _never_ been portable.

I found it shocking that the "Numerical Recipes" code makes this same 
assumption;  they tell you to put in your own SAVEs if your machine needs
them....

	-P.
************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb**************************
Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY  10027
(212)854-1418  shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu(Internet)  shenkin@cunixf(Bitnet)
***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***