(j3.2006) Public Comment J32037

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Tuesday 15 July 2008 15:15, Jim Giles wrote:
> In any case, that
> "beauty" will still exist for Alex if he leaves off the d part of
> *his* g0 edit descriptor. ?The comment in no way implied that
> a d part should be a required part of a g0 edit descriptor, just
> that it should be allowed.
Fine with me if vendors are fine with it! I was just not understanding the 
argument behind the comment.
And BTW, vendors cannot use the "backward compatibility" argument for not 
changing their bad choices for list-directed I/O with g0---it is a *new* 
format and the whole point of adding was to make vendors do more sensivle 
things than some do at present.
Thanks,
Aleks