| Dan Nagle 2005-11-16, 9:58 pm |
| Hello,
robin wrote:
> Dan Nagle wrote in message ...
<snip>
> Really? Many would say that, clearly, you are just being perverse.
> What don't you understand about the term "in F77"?
<splork!>
I'm being "perverse" for citing the Fortran 77 standard?!
When you quote all the authority of unnamed, undated texts?!
>
>
> Perhaps not.
So your unnamed, undated texts contradict the Fortran 77 standard,
and you want to continue to defend your obviously erroneous texts?!
I was trying to excuse >>> errors in your unnamed, undated texts <<<
by remarking that a text author might have a motive, perhaps
portability or style guidelines, which would explain >>> your <<<
fallacious claim.
Pardon me for trying, but that hardly justifies a claim of perversity.
And Fortran 77 _still_ defines the value of a loop index of a do loop
following loop termination. You know, you can Google and download
the Fortran 77 standard, as PDF, for free.
>
>
> In your own words you quoted "unnamed, undated" >>>the f77 standard<<< and no
> publisher, no date. Could be anything.
And 11.10.7 could be a winning lottery number. :-)
How about "ANSI X3.9-1978 ISO 1539-1980 (E)"?
There now, is that clarity sufficient for you?
<snip>
>
>
> Again, are you just being perverse?
<splork!>
I merely remark that you have made yet another error,
and you call me "perverse" yet again?!
Your vain efforts to preserve some semblance of prior correctness
have foundered yet again.
You just can't see how to pull yourself lose from the tarbaby,
can you?
Note how other posters in this thread have remarked
upon ways to prevent your most recent error, as well
as similar ones, from occurring in a Fortran 77 substring reference.
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
|