| Gary Scott 2007-11-24, 7:10 pm |
| Craig Dedo wrote:
> "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Dq2dnca0_tpIQNranZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
>
>
> Thanks for pointing out the complications, but I believe that all or
> nearly all of them are already covered by the C 99 Standard, ISO/IEC
> 9899:1999, especially section 6.4.4.4.
>
>
>
> All of these are covered by C99, 6.4.4.4.
>
>
>
> This behavior is Microsoft specific and is labelled as such on the
> web page you reference. It is most definitely non-standard. See C99,
> 6.4.4.4, par. 8 and note 64. In fact, note 64 requires an error
> condition if there is any escape sequence that is not covered by any of
> the specifically authorized translations.
>
>
>
> These are covered by C99, 6.4.4.4, especially par. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
>
>
>
> I had not thought about the elemental issue before, but making it
> elemental seems reasonable. It would add useful functionality at next
> to no cost. Blank padding at the end is not a big deal in Fortran.
>
>
>
> I was not planning to add a null character at the end. FWIW, the CVF
> extension does add a null character at the end, according to the
> documentation. I have not looked at such strings in the debugger, but,
> in my experience, DEC, CVF, HP, and Intel documentation is highly accurate.
>
>
>
> If I did it, I would follow the C99 standard rigorously and not worry
> about compiler-specific deviations from C99. That is the only way to
> keep the implementation effort to a reasonable amount.
>
None of these proposals seem to address a generic substitution
capability. That's far more broadly useful than simple escape sequences.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
|