Re: Converting fixed-to-free format

Ken Plotkin wrote:

Why would someone want both styles in the same routine? And if you've
got some routines in fixed format and some in free, why even put them
in the same source file? There's nothing wrong with having routines
in separate source files.

Different folks, different strokes I guess. Not surprising, perhaps, CVF
even even permits such a monster with the use of (no)freeform
delineators within the procedure - but I'll have you strung up by your
toes should you entertain making such a perverse concoction.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
    ... Ken Plotkin wrote: ... were genuinely incompatible between the old and new language ... in the same source file? ... There's nothing wrong with having routines ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
    ... were genuinely incompatible between the old and new language ... operations without regard to free vs fixed format. ... in the same source file? ... There's nothing wrong with having routines ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: How to iterate through 80-100 procedures?
    ... Having defined all routines individually, can you not declare a constant ... Defs: array [0..93 ... collected from the source file by a text tool such as SED MiniTrue or ...
    (comp.lang.pascal.borland)
  • Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
    ... got some routines in fixed format and some in free, ... in the same source file? ... You might want to group some routines like this into a single ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: C Socket Programming question
    ... > in the source file? ... DUH, that was it. ... I have netdb.h defined in possocket.c (handles all socket ... routines). ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)