Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!ags From: ags@h.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: *THE SPECIAL CASE* (was: function side effects) Message-ID: <3994@h.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 21 Sep 88 05:22:57 GMT References: <3987@h.cc.purdue.edu> <3821@lanl.gov> Reply-To: ags@h.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 36 In article <3821@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >You are the one who keeps >introducing into the discussion things which weren't relevant to the >original issue. On the contrary, you are the one who keeps changing the subject and talking about the general case. To see clearly what is happening, take a look at the subject line above. I have changed it. I am now talking ONLY about the special case. I expect you to do likewise, unless you use a different subject line. Do we have agreement on the ground rules? Good. Now, I will ask my question one last time: why is my code example illegal? No, the answer is not "because side effects are not allowed in Fortran." That is not answering the question. That is changing the subject. Get the picture? Let me help. The answer is, "because section _____ of the standard says _________________". You fill in the blanks. No paraphrasing, please. I insist on an exact quote. How about it? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fair warning: I intend to post again, with THE GENERAL CASE as my subject. Since you were the one who introduced that discussion and kept returning to it every time I tried to discuss MY subject, I thought you were entitled to know. Of course, you don't have to respond, if you find it too difficult to stick to logic and can no longer accuse me of changing the subject. -- Dave Seaman ags@j.cc.purdue.edu