(j3.2006) READ unit ambiguity

[Malcolm Cohen]

I mistyped:
> Nice one. In Fortran 90-2003 this is standard-conforming: (unit).op.666
> is the unit specifier.

Bill Long replied:
>Really?  The unit specifier would have to be entirely enclosed in ( ), as in
>
>   read ( (Unit) .op. 666)
>
>according to the syntax rules. Worse, a unit spec would not be followed by a 
>comma.  So, I think f90/f03 would see this as not a unit specifier, but rather 
>(UNIT).op.666  as a format.

Absolutely.  I thought "format" but my fingers typed "unit".  I was getting a 
bit tired...

...sorry for any confusion!

>I've now lost track of how many times the new "function reference returning a 
>pointer is a variable" has caused bad side effects in the standard.  "Cool" 
>ideas sometimes seem to have grief / benefit ratio that are higher than 
>expected.

Actually I don't think this one has been particularly bad yet.  Several other 
pseudo-cool ideas have had lower benefit/grief ratios IMO.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.