From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Jan 22 10:57:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 035E5CA3439; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:57:57 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FFDCA3434 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:57:55 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:41974) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1LPwJu-00084p-4g (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:57:54 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1LPwJu-0000Nz-EB (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:57:54 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 22 Jan 2009 09:57:54 +0000 Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:57:54 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3883) (j3.2006) WG5 Ballot 6 (N1765) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090122041335.1FB2FC178D9@www2.open-std.org> References: <20090122033039.95FC7C178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20090122041335.1FB2FC178D9@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Jan 22 2009, Robert Corbett wrote: >Van Snyder wrote: > >> F03/0117: Making the whole file undefined seems a bit harsh. Couldn't >> this have been "the record being written when the program is >> terminated?" > >That change would place a burden on I/O buffering that would >hurt the performance of many implementations. For some types >of devices, it might even be impossible to implement. Actually, I believe that all of those points apply only to poorly implemented I/O systems, and a suitably milder constraint would be possible. I am nowhere near omniscient on I/O systems, but have used a wide variety, and know of none that couldn't support Van's proposal (in principle). Unfortunately, it would need quite a lot of wording, because formatted I/O allows multiple records to be written in one statement and stream files muddy the issue considerably. I doubt that it is worth the effort. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679