mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (09/21/89)
mac@harris.cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) writes: >But I don't know why you'd want a preprocessor for FORTRAN 77. >SPARKS was written back in the days when FORTRAN 66 didn't have >any block structure; now that FORTRAN 77 does, preprocessors >seem kind of unnecessary. >--Myron It's been a few years since I was a Fortranner, but in my experience Fortran suffered from the "Tower of Babel Effect": multiple incompatible extensions, even in F77. The ratfor compiler I used generated a lowest-common-denominator F66 that would be painful to write, but which is easy to port. Also it handled the C-like preprocessor things like #define that standard F77 (at the time, at least) didn't. -- Mark McWiggins Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek) +1 206 455 9935 DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong ... 1400 112th Ave SE #202 Bellevue WA 98004 uunet!intek01!mark Ask me about C++!