Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!life!burley From: burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: A Question of Style Message-ID: Date: 31 May 91 16:46:59 GMT References: <12306@uwm.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139 Lines: 27 In-reply-to: userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA's message of 31 May 91 05:17:54 GMT In article userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) writes: >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? Actually, no. You mean there is ANOTHER vendor who did this kind of thing? Sigh. On the other hand, if the Fortran being "sold" isn't an ANSI 77 Fortran, but is a vendor's "own", as in the case of maintaining compatibility with a very old product, then I won't complain if their computed-GOTO happens to require the computed value be in range. It isn't standard Fortran, of course. I don't know about DG, but at my last company, it WAS supposed to be standard Fortran 77 (though lacking some minor things like character data type and all I/O statements -- believe it or not), i.e. based in F77, and in any case there wasn't some "old" Fortran to be compatible with. -- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu