Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!ags From: ags@h.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: *THE GENERAL CASE* (was: function side effects) Message-ID: <4007@h.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 23 Sep 88 15:56:04 GMT References: <4003@h.cc.purdue.edu> <4035@lanl.gov> Reply-To: ags@h.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 27 In article <4035@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >Please point to _ANY_ statement I made about Forttran not allowing side >effects for which the subject line of the article did not _explicitly_ >refer to the special case in question. To quote Kerr Avon of "Blake's 7": How long a list would you like? Until I split the discussion into two streams (general/special case), ALL of the subject lines were either i++, i+=1, i=i+1 or function side effects (was: i++, i+=1, i=i+1) Neither of these describes the specific case we were discussing. In particular, I don't see a subscript anywhere. You made the statement that Fortran does not allow function side effects, period. I obviously could not allow that statement to stand uncontested without surrendering the entire argument. Therefore, I challenged it. Why are you surprised? In order to get anywhere, I had to make you stop talking in generalities and start talking about precisely which side effects are not allowed, according to the standard. In order to do that, I finally had to exclude the general case altogether, after which the argument terminated very quickly. -- Dave Seaman ags@j.cc.purdue.edu