[comp.lang.fortran] Argument not found

ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) (03/03/88)

In article <720@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>It's not clear what you mean by "nonstandard".
>Since system calls are outside the scope of the Fortran standard,
>I took this to mean that there was thought to be some extra-hairy
>about the system calls qua system calls, such as being undocumented.
>If that was not the intention "system calls" would have sufficed.
>The system calls you need under CMS are perfectly ordinary CMS system calls.

Let's suppose for the moment that you honestly didn't understand what I
meant by "nonstandard system calls".  You still could see by my posting
that I was aware that there was a way to dynamically access files from
within a FORTRAN program, but that I considered this to be an exception in
some way.  Namely, I was making the point that it could not be done in
standard FORTRAN in that particular environment.

	[ quoting my earlier posting ]
>> 	2.  It would be preferable to provide for dynamic file access 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 	    within standard FORTRAN, but FTN200 is not the only environment
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 	    that has this problem.  It is shared, for example, by FORTVS2
>> 	    under CMS.

	[ to which you responded: ]
>I repeat that
>someone could provide a Fortran compiler for UNIX which didn't support
>UNIX file names, but we'd hardly take *that* to be evidence that dynamic
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>file access should not be part of standard Fortran, and an MVS Fortran
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>compiler running under CMS doesn't provide any better evidence.

You were nice enough to quote the refutation of your own remarks from
my previous posting.  Don't you read anything before including it?

Far from advocating that dynamic file access should not be part of standard
Fortran, I explicitly said the opposite.  Read that first quoted statement
again.  Understand now?

You seem to be absolutely determined to misconstrue everything I say.
Unless you can contribute something substantive, I do not plan to post
again on this subject.

-- 
Dave Seaman	  					
ags@j.cc.purdue.edu