Re: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine)
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:06:40 -0800
Joe Krahn <lastname_at_niehs.nih.gov@xxxxx> wrote:
I see that the plan is to use negative unit numbers for automatically
assigned units. It seems to me that there would be fewer conflicts by
using positive numbers starting at some number higher than the old
compiler limits, an therefore unlikely to conflict with old code using
constant unit numbers.
What number is this that is higher than "the old compiler limits"? I
thought I recalled that some compilers allowed any postive number. On
the other hand, negative unit numbers have previously been invalid. So I
fail to see how numbers that were formerly valid could have fewer
conflicts than ones that were formerly invalid. I must have missed
something about your point.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- From: Joe Krahn
- Re: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- From: Pierre Asselin
- Re: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- References:
- Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- From: Joe Krahn
- Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- Prev by Date: Re: question on character-like variable defination
- Next by Date: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Previous by thread: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- Next by thread: Re: Automatic allocation of an available file unit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
