From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d901a50a5adfec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9f0bf354542633fd X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada? Date: 1998/09/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 394835105 References: <36068E73.F0398C54@meca.polymtl.ca> <6u8r5o$aa4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <360A3446.8AD84137@lmco.com> <6udre0$ha1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6uenmo$fov$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6uenmo$fov$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes: > My best understanding is that the DO I = 1.6 type bug was > actually in the code at one time, but discovered during > simulation. > Incidentally there is a remarkable APAR for IBSYS Fortran > IV dated around 1967 which read something like > "The Fortran compiler miscompiles [the above type of DO] > and treats it as an assignment statement. This will be > corrected in a future release." > TO my knowledge this APAR was never closed :-) I thought it was. Several compilers I used in that time frame would produce warning messages if a reserved word was combined into an identifier, or if any spaces occured in suspicious places. (Unfortunately, I know this because I had to check all warnings on some code which had been written with variable names containing spaces. Fortunately, six, and later eight, character names didn't have much room for mischief like this, but I do remember variables named NO GO and LAST X.) -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...