Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ames!skipper!altair!maine From: maine@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Error handling in large programs -- another question Message-ID: Date: 29 May 91 17:25:24 GMT References: <28787@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <28791@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <13240@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: ralph@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu's message of 29 May 91 05:26:29 GMT On 29 May 91 05:26:29 GMT, ralph@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (Ralph Becker-Szendy) said: ...[discussion of error handling approach]... Ralph> I prefer an integer function which returns an error code. Like Ralph> that, if I don't care about the error (sometimes one really Ralph> doesn't) one can call it as a subroutine. I just want to point out that calling a function as a subroutine is neither standard nor portable. Probably "everyone" including Ralph knows this, and it was pretty explicit that Ralph's approach was VMS oriented in general, but this particular construct was not explicitly labelled as non-portable. I don't mean this followup as a criticism of the approach. I just want to make sure that it is explicitly clear which parts are system-dependent and which parts are portable. The VMS system calls are pretty obvious without saying, but this part might be missed by some. -- -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov