maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) (01/25/91)
On 25 Jan 91 05:15:17 GMT, phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz said: phys169> This is all getting very silly. Reminds me of the COME-FROM phys169> that was suggested after an even sillier discussion of phys169> goto's. Anyone remember that?? Would you believe that I've used a Fortran compiler that actually implemented the comefrom statement? It was not a documented feature, just a bit of insider humor on the part of the compiler writers. On a hint, I tried it out and it really worked. (No, I was not silly enough to use it on "real" programs, though for a while I kept a little sample around to amuse people with). I think it disappeared soon after a customer submitted a bug report relating to it! If I recall, the bug report had something to do with the optimizer not recognizing loops implemented with comefroms, making them run slower than loops done with gotos or do statements. (I may not have this part 100% right). The machine was an Elxsi 6400, which we still have (yes its the one my email address below shows). I forget the version of the compiler, but it was probably about 3-4 years ago. -- Rich Maine maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
maman@uranie.inria.fr (Nathan Maman) (01/29/91)
I don't know exactly how these COMEFROM's worked, but perhaps they could be used in Exceptions|Errors|Signals treatment(s). Example: Sub s1 statements return entry-point s1_some_signal treatment you should be able here to a) return to calculation in s1 b) return to calling sub c) exit from program with some message end s1 Sub signal_handler if COME-FROM s1 then go to s1_some_signal end if return (or whatever: stop, ...) end What do you think, am I wrong ? -- Nat. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Address: M. Nathan MAMAN, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, FRANCE | | E-mail: maman@mirsa.inria.fr, Phone: 33-93.65.77.95, FAX: 33-93.65.78.58 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+