From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jan 29 15:17:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 188663587F1; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:17:33 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A21F3570D2 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:17:28 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:42800) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1YGpuP-00073Q-jT (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:17:25 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1YGpuP-0006ZO-19 (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:17:25 +0000 Received: from [146.90.224.195] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 29 Jan 2015 14:17:25 +0000 Date: 29 Jan 2015 14:17:25 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Rafik Zurob Cc: fortran standards email list for J3 , WG5 Mailing List Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5439) (j3.2006) RE: Proposal of a new requirement : CMDMSG optional argument in 3 subroutines Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20150129031639.25E7F3587C8@www.open-std.org> References: <20150127125841.B08CB3570D2@www.open-std.org> <20150127174136.94FA435733E@www.open-std.org> <20150129031639.25E7F3587C8@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Jan 29 2015, Rafik Zurob wrote: > >I also checked the POSIX spec page for getenv() >to see if it defines any errors -- it does not. (I'm not saying everyone >on UNIX/Linux/BSD calls getenv(). I was just thinking that if getenv() >defined errors, some vendors might have defined status > 2 values to >correspond to those errors.) The Windows GetEnvironmentVariable function >also does not appear to define errors not covered by status values -1 to >1. POSIX is, as we all know, a crock. Implementations can check that the string is valid and unambiguous and diagnose that separately. Ones with significant trailing spaces are ambiguous in Fortran terms. setenv() forbids ones with '=', but POSIX says that any characters other than alphanumerics and underscore are system-dependent (see 8.1). And, of course, Unix-derived systems are not the universe. Allowing an implementation to do better than POSIX seems a good idea. Requiring it to do so would be a mistake. Regards, Nick Maclaren.