Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert
From: hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Multiple runs in the background.
Message-ID: <50500053@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 May 88 01:47:00 GMT
References: <1869@uhccux.UUCP>
Lines: 42
Nf-ID: #R:uhccux.UUCP:1869:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500053:000:2456
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert    May 28 20:47:00 1988


I have three quibbles about the quoted article from tsh@mace.cc.purdue.edu:
1.
>Its real simple. You make the names of the files you want to work with
>the 1st part of the input from std input (unit 5). The you use open
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      READ(*,'(A)')VAR     reads from FORTRAN standard input
      READ '(A)',VAR       reads from FORTRAN standard input
      READ(5,'(A)')VAR     reads from FORTRAN unit 5
There are a number of systems on which unit 5 and standard input denote the
same file or device, but this connection is far from universal.
2.
>The advantage of this technique should be obvious if you have to run
>programs on several operating systems. You don't have to write any
>DCl or script language except for a few rudiments to deal with std input
>and output redirection, if required. All input to the program is part
>of a simple text file- no DCL or script language to confuse new users.
This approach is fine for Unix (which is what the original question was about),
but be warned that there are systems where either there is no fixed name for
files and/or some kind of control language _must_ be executed to make files
accessible through the OPEN statement.  In other words, there are systems
where this approach won't work as expected.
3.
>Hope this helps....now if the Fortran 88 standard would only some into
>reality and I could forget about changing crap like
>integer*2,real*2 and real*4 to integer, half precision and real
>when I port things to/from UNIX / Cyber 205 VSOS...
The Fortran 8x draft released for public comment included a facility for
portable specification of REAL variables but not for INTEGERs.  The comments
received were largely negative, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to
be adopted.  Extensive changes are likely to result.  Generalized REAL
precision is a probable casualty, but there is still a reasonable chance for
it to be replaced by some simpler facility that would still allow for portable
specification of REAL representation.  There were comments requesting similar
capabilities for INTEGERs, LOGICALs (1 bit logicals), and CHARACTERs (they
need multibyte characters in Japan, China, Korea, etc.), but extension in these
areas seems fairly unlikely in the current committee climate.

>Greg Kamer
>Purdue Macromolecular Crystallography Computer Specialist
Kurt W. Hirchert     hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu
National Center for Supercomputing Applications