(SC22WG14.323) Re: reaction to Variable Length Array Proposal <9302111113.aa06155aVGR.BRL.MIL>

[uunet!netcom.com!segfault!rfg]

Doug Gwyn writes:

  As was pointed out to me off-line, one of the main reasons people
  are asking for "preservation of the Fortran calling order" (which
  by the way is backwards from most of the Fortran library functions
  I once designed) is that they expect automatic Fortran-to-C
  converters to be applied to existing Fortran code and these
  converters are not smart enough to remap calling sequences.

I (for one) would be happy to provide the writers of such tools with
ample descriptions of how to write simple list-reversal routines.
(I think I still have my introductory CS "data structures" textbook
here somewhere. :-)

  Another reason offered is that existing Fortran library documentation
  could still be reasonably used by human C coders if the order were
  preserved.

Right.

Imagine walking into Sears and buying a chain saw.  As you are paying for
it you ask the sales-person if the instructions for it are in the box.
She says "No, there is no instruction manual provided specifically for
this product, but it's just like the power mower I sold you last year,
only different."  (My reaction?  "C'mon!  Get real!")

  I don't much buy these arguments...

Me neither.

  ... but out of fairness they should be understood.

Agreed.  They should be understood for what they are.


// Ronald F. Guilmette
//    domain address:	rfgasegfault.uucp
//    uucp address:	...!uunet!netcom.com!segfault!rfg