[log in to unmask] writes:
> Richard Maine wrote,
[on the subject of upper/lower-casing]
> >I once proposed (unoficially and orally) such an intrinsic,
> >and Phillip has basically sumarized the reply I got. It was
> >obvious that this had been discussed before. I didn't pursue
> >it further (with questions like "well how about the easy cases;
> >that would still be useful". Such questions occurred to me, but
> >it didn't seem worth arguing further at the time).
> Someone suggested in this thread that such an intrinsic should only be aligned
> to EBCDIC or ASCII.
That's among the kinds of "easy cases" that I was referring to above
when I said that such things occured to me, but didn't seem worth
arguing about at the time. It was easier to just keep my own
functions. Please note that I am *AGREEING* with you. I'd like such
intrinsics. If they existed, I'd use them. I'm just not willing to
spend my wishes in arguing for them, since the suggestion wasn't
immediately accepted.
> Do I assume that the only way that ADJUSTL/R came into being was because the
> blank character has the same representation in all the aforementioned systems?
No. The representation doesn't matter (and it's not the same on all
systems). All that matters is that there *is* a character assigned to
the role of blank. The standard requires this of any character set.
> Regardless of Phillip's and Richard's comments, this should be simple IF IT IS
> RESTRICTED TO THE CHARACTER SET DEFINED BY THE FORTRAN STANDARD. Sorry to
> shout, but isn't this a good basis for a manifoldly (such a word :-) used
> function.
Yes. See above. I agree. That doesn't mean I'm willing to go fight
for it. If I fought for everything I wanted, I'd be pretty bloody by
now (and I'd probably have actually gotten less of my wishes because
of the resulting tarnished reputation).
--
Richard Maine
[log in to unmask]
|