Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!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: <7335@ficc.uu.net> Date: 18 Dec 89 15:36:37 GMT References: <7320@ficc.uu.net> <14178@lambda.UUCP> <7329@ficc.uu.net> <591@unmvax.unm.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 26 > What I mean by this is that there is nothing in > the description of the language (the standard) that even hints at how > it should be implemented (the semantics), Which is quite correct, because different hardware and operating systems have different requirements. What's appropriate for a Macintosh isn't appropriate for a batch environment. And neither of these would have the same pause semantics as an interactive task under UNIX. MOST of the time TYPE and READ is just fine. But it's not appropriate for a batch or graphical environment. And a batch environment is where Fortran was born... which is why it has this feature (and why C, born in an interactive text environment, doesn't). > Apparently this means it could be flashed on a lighted > display on Times Square for a nanosecond, for example. This is a quality of implementation question. One could similarly claim that an OPEN statement could place a long-distance operator-assisted call to New York and have a newspaper vendor in Grand Central Station key the data in via touch-tone. Both claims are ludicrous. -- `-_-' 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