Phillip Helbig writes:
> Right.
...
Ok. Looks like we are reasonably in agreement then. You had me
worried for a while.
> They should both [pointers and allocatables] remain, I was thinking
> about obsoleting certain USES of them (but thinking about it, don't
> know if that is practical or can even be done).
>
> GOTOs might still have their uses, but emulating IF blocks and DO loops
> is not one of them.
Ok. Agree in a way. But I don't think you are talking about
something in the standard. I can't picture any way for the standard
to say anything like that. The legality of a construct can't very
well depend on a user's intent.
Sounds to me more like you are making suggestions for something like a
style guide. As such, I think its a fine idea. That is as long as it
did not use terminology that could be so easily confused with a
statement about the standard. I don't like it when readers of a book
come away thinking that style choices suggested by the book are a
mandate of the standard. I don't like this kind of confusion even
when I agree with the style choices in question.
--
Richard Maine
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|