|
| Dan Nagle wrote in message ...
>robin wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Which texts are you holding as the equivalent
>of the section cited in the Fortran 77 standard?
>
>Perhaps the "texts of the day" were describing
>the Fortran 66 standard, or
Really? Many would say that, clearly, you are just being perverse.
What don't you understand about the term "in F77"?
>perhaps the "texts of the day" were wrong or  , or
>perhaps the "texts of the day" are describing several different
>implementations (some 66, some 77), and offering advice on portability?
Perhaps not.
>Why are you quoting unnamed, undated "texts of the day" when
>I cited chapter and verse of the >>> Fortran 77 Standard <<< for you?
In your own words you quoted "unnamed, undated" >>>the f77 standard<<< and no
publisher, no date. Could be anything.
>(That's what the "11.10.7" above references.)
>
>Perhaps you're , with Fortran 77 the >>> substring <<<
Again, are you just being perverse?
>--
>Cheers!
>
>Dan Nagle
|
|