On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Lawrie Schonfelder wrote:
> What Richard says is absolutely correct, as usual, but it does not stop it
> being totally stupid! Why should there be any artificially imposed name
> management issue of this sort. Construct names and variable names are always
> contextually and syntactically distinguished.
I agree totally with Lawrie Schonfelder - it would be particularly useful
in the case of deeply nested DO loops to name each loop after the control
variable, e.g.
row: do row = 1, nrows
!contents of loop
end do row
But this does not seem to be allowed, so one has to double up on ones
names. It might have been even nicer for the END DO syntax to have
allowed the variable name rather than the construct name to be appended;
of course one can append an end-of-line comment but that isn't as elegant
and can't be checked by the compiler to see if it matches.
> Still the iconoclast!
Indeed, see below:
> Phone: 44(151)794 3716, Fax: 44(151)794 3759
There is a Standard for such things, it is ITU(T) standard E.123, and the
recommended form is (using your own number as an example)
+44 151 794 3716
It seems to me a perfectly sensible standard, and that the parentheses you
put around your area code don't help anyone much, as there is no
circumstance in which one can use the country code without also needing to
dial the area code. So let's have a bit of support for international
standards, where they are indeed sensible! :-)
--
Clive Page,
Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Leicester.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|