Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA!Al_Dunbar From: userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: A Question of Style Message-ID: Date: 31 May 91 05:17:54 GMT References: <12306@uwm.edu> Organization: MTS Univ of Alberta Lines: 32 In article , burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >In article userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) writes: > > In article , burley@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: > >Wrong, unreferenced labels are NOT "very likely due to an error". I'd put > >the odds at more like 5% than the implied 90%+. > > A nice statistic, but based on what? It is likely true of your > code, because you use unreferenced labels. Since I choose not to > do this, the odds that the presence of an unreferenced label in > my code represents an error is exactly 100%. > >No, I'm a neatnick, in my code it, too, would be 100%, unless I were doing >automated debugging/testing with a fixture that required/allowed breakpoints <<< multiple deletions >>> > >And to take the example I know well, one cannot claim that falling through >a computed GOTO because the computed value is out of range is a run-time >"error" because that is what the standard says is SUPPOSED to happen. (The >company I used to work for used to lump this "error" in with things like >"array reference out of bounds" and "reference to uninitialized variable", >until I convinced the VP of R&D to change his thinking, with help from other >real Fortran experts in the firm.) Aha! so you used to work for Data General, then? -------------------+------------------------------------------- Al Dunbar | Edmonton, Alberta | Disclaimer: "not much better than CANADA | datclaimer" -------------------+-------------------------------------------