Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #12956

Re: newby question on C I/O

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/09/2011 06:12 AM, BartC wrote:
> "Edward Rutherford" <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:j9c3an$u4f$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...
> Let's look at part of what was posted:
> 
>>         subroutine getdat(values,costs,statuses.items)
>>
>>        character statuses*3
>>        real values,costs
>>        dimension values(1000),Costs(1000),Statuses(1000)
>>
>>         integer items, j
> 
> It wasn't so much the shock of seeing lower case keywords, but seeing
> identifiers written as costs and Costs, and status and Statuses, for no good
> reason, especially when declared over two statements instead of one; could
> this Fortran be case-sensitive and they are actually intended to be two 
> separate identifers? There is values(1000),
> but maybe that was supposed to be Values(1000)?
> 
> (You could just declare real values(1000), costs(1000) surely?)
> 
> And then there is statuses.items, which may or may not be a typo. And the 9
> spaces before 'subroutine', and the 8 before 'character'.
> 
> With such an untidy bit of code, it's not surprising that they were doubts
> about it being valid Fortran, of any vintage.

Every constraint implied by your comments has been lifted; I believe
that some of them may have been lifted before some current Fortran
programmers were born. The last time I wrote Fortran on a regular basis
was two decades ago, using VMS Fortran, and the only feature you've
mentioned that seems new to me is statuses.items. I know little about
modern Fortran, but enough to know that it is not a typo, and that it
has a meaning similar to what it would mean in C.
-- 
James Kuyper

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

newby question on C I/O "analyst41@hotmail.com" <analyst41@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 15:07 -0700
  Re: newby question on C I/O Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-04 20:50 -0400
    Re: newby question on C I/O "analyst41@hotmail.com" <analyst41@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 18:57 -0700
    Re: newby question on C I/O "analyst41@hotmail.com" <analyst41@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-07 17:10 -0800
      Re: newby question on C I/O Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-08 14:47 +1300
      Re: newby question on C I/O "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-08 01:52 +0000
      Re: newby question on C I/O Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-07 20:56 -0500
        Re: newby question on C I/O Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 20:27 +0000
          Re: newby question on C I/O Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-08 20:48 -0500
          Re: newby question on C I/O "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-09 11:12 +0000
            Re: newby question on C I/O James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-09 07:02 -0500
              Re: newby question on C I/O Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 16:12 +0000
        Re: newby question on C I/O - SUCCESS "analyst41@hotmail.com" <analyst41@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-08 16:12 -0800
  Re: newby question on C I/O James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-04 21:46 -0400
    Re: newby question on C I/O Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-05 06:52 +0000
      Re: newby question on C I/O Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-05 04:13 -0700
      Re: newby question on C I/O James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-05 08:16 -0400
        Re: newby question on C I/O Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-05 09:21 -0400
      Re: newby question on C I/O Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-05 09:13 -0400
    Re: newby question on C I/O David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
      Re: newby question on C I/O James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 10:05 -0500
        Re: newby question on C I/O David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-01-19 02:40 -0500
  Re: newby question on C I/O "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-06 21:23 +0000
  Re: newby question on C I/O "analyst41@hotmail.com" <analyst41@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-10 18:00 -0800
    Re: newby question on C I/O Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-11 01:35 -0800
      Re: newby question on C I/O gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-11-11 11:26 +0000
        Re: newby question on C I/O Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-11 04:41 -0800
          Re: newby question on C I/O gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-11-11 14:14 +0000
            Re: newby question on C I/O Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-11 07:02 -0800
              Re: newby question on C I/O gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-11-11 15:44 +0000

csiph-web