James Giles wrote:
>
> Walt Brainerd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >James Giles wrote:
> >Where will it all end? This would prevent "inlining" of procedures
> >because (unless some other strange things have been done to the
> >standard), I don't think there is any place that allows it. In fact,
> >there are explicit words to the effect that a CALL statement is executed
> >by executing the subroutine.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't specify how the subroutine is to be executed.
> Executing an inline copy is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, I agree that inlining is very reasonable. However, if
we believe that "Interp #1" is correct (I don't), then we must take
the words from the standard (12.4.3):
"When a subroutine is invoked, ... the subroutine is executed."
It doesn't say that you can extract the executable code out of the
subroutine and move it into the calling program--just as Interp #1
says you cannot move code from one statement to another. It says
you must execute THE SUBROUTINE, not some code extracted from it.
Obviously, this is all silly and Interp #1 should be fixed to put
things back to the way they have been for 40+ years.
--
Walt Brainerd [log in to unmask]
Unicomp, Inc. +1-520-298-7212 298-7074 (fax)
7660 E. Broadway, Suite 308 888-330-6060
Tucson, AZ 85710 USA http://www.uni-comp.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|