Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- From: "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:08:48 -0600
"Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d4v9pv$1sk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'd be interesting in your reasoning. AFAICT, the construct-name
> is local to the construct. For example, a EXIT or CYCLE in the 2nd
> loop of the example code that I posted will not branch to the
> end of the first loop.
You seem not to have noticed that Richard likes to use construct
names even when they aren't necessary, just so that he can tell
at a glance which control statements go with which construct.
Definitely a step in the direction towards self-documentation,
and I know from experience just how hard it can be to spot an
error caused by thinking a control statement refers to a
different construct than it actually does. Allowing multiple
constructs to have the same name erodes the effectiveness of
this self-checking feature.
--
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- From: Steven G. Kargl
- Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- References:
- uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- From: Steven G. Kargl
- Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- From: Richard E Maine
- Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- From: Steven G. Kargl
- uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- Prev by Date: Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- Next by Date: Re: Find the size of variables in Fortran
- Previous by thread: Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- Next by thread: Re: uniqueness of {if,do,case}-construct-name
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|