> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:30:41 -0600
> From: Dick Hendrickson <[log in to unmask]>
> At 04:18 PM 12/5/97 +0000, David B. Serafini wrote:
> >BTW, why didn't F90 allow the general use of labels of the form "<name>:"?
> >I can't see any reason for sticking with numeric labels only.
> >
> >-David
> >
> That's an easy one <grin>. In fixed source form asequence like
> implicit integer (t)
> ...
> assign to to to to
> to continue
> toto continue
> is ambiguous.
Nope. I said using the form "<name>:" The colon should disambiguate.
assign to: to to to
Anyway, I think it would be reasonable to restrict the usage so
you couldn't ASSIGN an alphanumeric label to an INTEGER variable.
(ASSIGN is deprecated, after all.)
I don't think there is a problem even if you didn't restrict it.
The standard says you can't look at the _value_ in the INTEGER variable after you
have ASSIGN'd to it, so how the compiler maps the label to a number is
irrelevant.
> This backwards compatability stuff is sometimes a pain.
I agree in general, but I don't think it applies here. Although I could
be missing something else. (not that I thought of ASSIGN beforehand)
> Dick
-David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|