Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: *THE GENERAL CASE* (was: function side effects) Message-ID: <4100@lanl.gov> Date: 23 Sep 88 21:48:31 GMT References: <4007@h.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 22 From article <4007@h.cc.purdue.edu>, by ags@h.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman): > 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. > 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. Both of them do since the specific case we were discussing was the replacement of i=i+1 with i+=1. You were the one who implied that: A(F(I))=A(F(I))+1 was allowed to have F modify I on the call. (In response to what I said that this function call wasn't allowed side effects, you quoted the standard which allowed functions to change their args. They can't in this case. This was the case under discussion - as explicitly placed into the subject line.) J. Giles Los Alamos