Richard Maine wrote:
>
> Walt Brainerd writes:
> >
> > But we all seem to be in violent agreement.
>
> I'm also in violent agreement that this kind of thing should be ok.
> What I'm not so sure about is that its worth spending committee
> time on. I seem to recall many hours of debate on exact wording
> of this stuff for the standard, with little constructive result.
Rich is right, of course. What is sad is that committee time has
spent screwing it up and I fear that somebody may take the
interpretation seriously and think they may not do those optimizations.
But I like to pretend I am Don Quixote occasionally.
A similar situation is the wording in the standard that says it is
not legal to assign all the digits to x in:
real(double) :: x
x = 12345678901234
(stupid because how do we check that the right digits
haven't "accidentally" been assigned after first truncating
the constant and then extending it during assignment?)
If you check the compiler of the vendor that claims the largest
market share on the PC, you will find that depending on whether
this is
a) a parameter
b) an initialization of a variable
c) an assignment to a variable
you get different values (two anyway). I don't think there
is anything illegal about this, just a bit unfortunate,
perhaps.
--
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|