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