Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!fatcity!khb
From: khb@fatcity.Sun.COM (fatcity)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: DO loops, anyone?
Message-ID: <94640@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 17 Mar 89 23:02:23 GMT
References: <28506@sgi.SGI.COM> <1320@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <1913@devsys.oakhill.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (fatcity)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 33

In article <1913@devsys.oakhill.UUCP> steve@oakhill.UUCP (steve) writes:

>> compilers to produce code that catches this error, at least as an option.
>> .....................
>
>There are two problems in this code.
>
>  1) It is illegal
>  2) People want to do it.
>
>The ANSI standard, as much as they and we would perfer otherwise, do not
>live in the real world.  They have ordained this code as illegal. 
>But the real world wants to do this.

Until 2 years ago (a bit less actually) I was part of the real world.
I never had any trouble explaining why I was fixing someones code to
remove this (relatively RARE, in well tested codes) problem. 

The key "problem" was that compiler writers allowed it to work on some
machine somewhere. Had compiler writers not made the mistake of
ignoring the X3J3 directive, we would not be having this discussion.

People want to do it, only because it exists in some programs. The
correct thing to do (in the best of all possible worlds) is what Lahey
does. Don't allow it. Tell the customer to fix the code. 

Please DO NOT ALTER COMPILERS to start allowing this. Anyone who sells
compilers should STOP ALLOWING it.

We can't solve the worlds problems, but this one does have a solution.

Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus