Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!eplrx7!leipold From: leipold@eplrx7.uucp (Walt Leipold) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: A Question of Style Message-ID: <1991Jun4.134341.13421@eplrx7.uucp> Date: 4 Jun 91 13:43:41 GMT References: Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Organization: DuPont Neural Network Technology Center Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: louie.udel.edu In article Al Dunbar writes: > 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%. Personally, I still use Ratfor -- it's the only way I've found of writing standard-conforming, portable FORTRAN(*) without gagging. Given the style of FORTRAN that Ratfor preprocessors generate, a compiler that *insisted* on flagging every unreferenced label would be *completely* useless. IMHO, a FORTRAN compiler should never issue a warning about *any* standard- conforming code unless I ask it to... Any other default behavior results in a community of users who think their local FORTRAN *is* the standard. (*) And I don't want to hear any flak about 'standard-conforming' .NE. 'portable'! As far as I'm concerned, if my code conforms to the ANSI standard, the vendor has a problem if he can't compile it correctly. (As it turns out, a lot of vendors have problems.) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "When dealing with the insane, Walt Leipold it is best to pretend to be sane." (leipolw%esvax@dupont.com) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The UUCP Mailer