From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Apr 29 19:07:48 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i3TH7m4O053360 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:07:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i3TH6JE7053334 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:07:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rich_maine@MAIL.DFRC.NASA.GOV) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:01:14 -0700 Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:06:38 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:06:33 -0700 From: Richard Maine To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3108) Future of coco Message-Id: <1321111BFD038D909CA4033D@397D00B13C40E37711D9CBEA> In-Reply-To: <200404291318.i3TDInbL048956@dkuug.dk> References: <200404291318.i3TDInbL048956@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk I hope you didn't expect people to have time to give these questions any serious thought between now and the meeting. I sure don't. :-( Some of the Europeans might plausibly have already left. Just one comment off the top of my head. I didn't have to spend time thinking about this one because it is an old knee-jerk of mine. --On Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:13 AM -0400 Dan Nagle wrote: > Should the symbol control mechanisms (ifdef, ifndef, undefine) > be supported? I vehemently oppose going down that direction. If that's what we wanted, we'd have been better off to just standardize a "Fortran-safe" version of cpp - something along the lines of fpp. My bad experiences with the error-prone nature of cpp/fpp were the main motivator behind my early support for coco. If we are going to have coco repeat all the same mistakes as cpp, then I retroactively withdraw my support. :-( In particular, the ifdef stuff is *SEVERELY* prone to undetected typos or similar errors. Put a typo in either the definition or the ifdef and they are still both perfectly legal, but don't do what you intended - happens all the time in cpp, at least to me. We've got the equivalent of "implicit none" by default in coco (Don't we? I'll confess that I don't keep up on it very well.) That saves us from a large class of typos, but it would be pretty much defeated by ifdef and friends. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain