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