Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!uhnix1!sugar!ssd From: ssd@sugar.UUCP (Scott Denham) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: F8X response (long) Message-ID: <1518@sugar.UUCP> Date: 5 Mar 88 08:48:37 GMT References: <705@elxsi.UUCP> <44400017@hcx2> <2337@s.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 29 Summary: It wasn't a bug it was a feature !! (But it's fixed anyway) In article <2337@s.cc.purdue.edu>, ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes: > Does this sound rather backward to you? It does to me, too. But before > you dismiss the VSOS operating system completely, consider IBM's VM/CMS > and their current FORTVS2 compiler. In that environment you cannot open > files by name at all, in any way that I know of. You can open files only > by "ddname", which means that you must remember to issue a "filedef" to > tell the system what ddname to assign to the file before you execute the > program. It is not possible to issue filedefs from within an executing > program in any way that I know of, and even if there is a way, this only > means that VM is no worse than VSOS when it comes to opening files. This was a known deficiency in IBM's VS fortran compiler - it was the result of the '77 standard being to vague as to what the 'name' was supposed to mean. In the IBM developers view, it meant the filedef/ddname in their environments. The SHARE Fortran project has convinced them of the error in their ways, and Version 2 Release 3 lets you have either syntax that makes you happy. (Incidently, in our environment, it turns out that the way they did it first is better about 80% of the time) There is nothing the "new" form gives you that you couldn't do (albeit with some user-written non-FORTRAN allocation routines) and the opposite was not true. But I'm ecstatic to have both options! > -- > Dave Seaman > ags@j.cc.purdue.edu Scott Denham Western Atlas International Of course they're my opinions, I made 'em up didn't I ???