Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: EQUIVALENCE, COMPUTED GO TO in FORTRAN 88? Message-ID: <7305@ficc.uu.net> Date: 14 Dec 89 15:48:31 GMT References: <7255@ficc.uu.net> <14169@lambda.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 27 In article <14169@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > But in this case you would simply replace the PAUSE with a > CALL REQ_BOX("message") instead of a PRINT+READ. Heaven forbid I should defend a feature of Fortran against Jim Giles, but the appropriate behaviour of PAUSE is implementation specific. It is not just PRINT+READ or CALL REQBOX. Under BSD, the most useful implementation of PAUSE is to print a message and send oneself a SIGSTOP, for example. Or what about a UNISYS 1100 (we have a bunch of those downstairs) where it could put out a request on the operator's console (it doesn't, but it should. This is a quality-of-implementation issue). In regular UNIX, it might even make sense to fork an interactive shell. The point is not that you can't do any such thing without PAUSE, but that while the behaviour that PAUSE implements is implementation-specific, the semantics have a close correspondance across a wide variety of systems. > The point is > that PAUSE has no semantics which cannot be handled more flexibly > and more explicitly by other means already in the language. OK, what's the other means? CALL PAUSE(message)? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com