 |
 |
On Friday 28 June 2002 15:17, John A. Turner wrote: > Aleksandar Donev wrote: > > Intel's compiler gives an error for the following function because it > > does not assign a return result: > > > > function test(x) > > write(*,*) "error!" > > stop > > end function test > > > > Is this kind of compiler behavior allowed? If yes, why should a silly > > compiler be allowed to play so smart (it should of course give a > > warning)... > > actually, the silly compiler is completely correct - the function > result *must* be assigned (or otherwise given a value), even if the > silly function is just going to print a msg and stop > Why use a function when no return value is expected, only a side effect? -- Tim Prince