(j3.2006) posting to comp.lang.fortran
Thu Mar 1 03:34:12 EST 2012
On 02/28/12 05:20, Bill Long wrote:
> On 2/27/12 6:58 PM, Robert Corbett wrote:
>> On 02/27/12 01:19, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> at comp.lang.fortran, Bob Corbett queried what the different compilers
>>> for the following program - and the replies showed that the results
>>> vary a lot. Cf.
>>> (I assume that he intended to post it here or write an IR.)
>> No, I did not intend to post the program to this mailing
>> list. I did not intend to write an interpretation request.
>> The answers to interpretation requests 000024 and 000027
>> against the Fortran 95 standard answered any questions I
>> might have had about what the output of the program should
>> I have known for about a decade that the implementation I
>> help support does not implement nonadvancing i/o as
>> required by interpretations 000024 and 000027. I recently
>> started working on fixes for our implementation. After
>> about a day, I realized that the fixes would require much
>> more work than I had originally thought. I was curious how
>> other implementations handled some of the hard cases, which
>> resulted in my posting on comp.lang.fortran.
> Which at least some of us would have never seen since we quit reading
> comp.lang.fortran years ago when the signal/noise ratio dropped too far.
Because there were no standards-related issues in my posting to
comp.lang.fortran, I did not think copying my posting to this
e-mail list would be appropriate.
There was a posting to comp.lang.fortran by Ian Harvey that might
be of interest here. He gave the example of the statement
READ (unit) .op. 666, X
The operator .op. has both unary and binary forms. The unary form
returns a pointer to a target variable, which the binary form
returns a character string of type default character that has the
form of a format. He asked if "(unit) .op. 666" should be treated
as a format or as an i/o control list followed by a variable.
More information about the J3