(j3.2006) Partial write in record with nonadvancing I/O

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Wed Feb 29 16:27:43 EST 2012


On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 17:10 -0800, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 03:03 AM, Van Snyder wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 16:11 -0800, Robert Corbett wrote:
> >> The Fortran standard defines what the program I posted to
> >> comp.lang.fortran should write (ignoring the possibility of
> >> processor-defined input/output error conditions). What do you think
> >> should be defined more precisely?
> > I disagree that the standard defines what the program ought to write.
> 
> I disagree with your disagreement.  The standard is reasonably clear on this.
> 
> Did you actually read the interps referenced?

The referenced interps are f95/0024 and f95/0027.  They don't illuminate
this question -- at least not for me.  Maybe Bob can explain the
relationship between those interps and the present problem.  Interp
f95/0024 might argue for writing ABCDMNOPIJKL as opposed to ABCDMNOP,
but neither 0024 nor 0027 illuminates the question whether
write-after-non-advancing-read to the same unit starts a new record.
I.e., whether the file ought to contain two records, the first being
ABCDEFGHIJKL and the second MNOP.

> Asserting that it is ambiguous does not make it so - show the ambiguity.

An indication of where the standard (plus interps if necessary)
specifies which of the three observed outputs is correct would be
helpful.

Maybe there is such a place, or conspiracy of places, but I haven't
found it (them) yet.

> Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >I concur with Van. I think the standard is ambiguous and that there are
> >four different outputs for the same program - each supported by several
> >compilers - exists, underlines this.
> 
> Nonsense.  It just shows people don't bother to hurry to fix bugs in cases that 
> affect very few users.  Indeed, probably no-one has complained for the majority 
> of them!  It is very obvious that several of the different outputs are not 
> conforming.
> 
> Again, neither of you has actually explained any ambiguity.  Perhaps because 
> there is none.
> 
> >I therefore would like to submit an interpretation request. Attached is
> >a draft version - comments are welcome.
> 
> The committee is not obliged to keep answering the same question.
> 
> BTW, we all have copies of the standard, regurgitating quotes from it does not 
> an argument make.
> 
> Cheers,




More information about the J3 mailing list