James Giles wrote:
> Now, that makes the language more useful. There's less to forget and
> get wrong. Those that want to permit the system's buffering have that
> choice. It's also portably implementable. Eventually, when well designed
> systems come back on the market, the distinction between the two flavors
> of OPEN will disappear.
I tend to agree that using FLUSH is too much of an art. But the choice really
is between:
1) Leaving FLUSH a vendor extension
2) Including FLUSH, despite its flaws
To me, 2 is much preferred. Fortran is designed and supported mainly by
vendors. They like standardizing extensions they already have. But asking
them to provide unbuffered IO and user control over that would most likely
never have made it into even the list of features for F2x, let alone in the
final draft :-()
Finally, I am just curious to know what these "well-designed systems" are?
Best,
Aleks
|