 |
 |
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] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%