From owner-sc22wg5 Fri Aug 10 16:45:50 2001 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA87993 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:45:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:43:30 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.129.8]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:45:16 -0700 Received: (from maine@localhost) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f7AEjF108890; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:45:15 -0700 From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <15219.62331.471074.536874@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT) To: WG5 Mailing List Subject: (SC22WG5.2176) Named Scratch Files in Fortran 2000 - Rationale In-Reply-To: <200108100928.LAA86639@dkuug.dk> References: <200108091200.OAA82583@dkuug.dk> <200108100046.CAA85311@dkuug.dk> <200108100928.LAA86639@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Dan Nagle writes: > Aborting the program if a named scratch file exists > when the open is executed is a bad idea, I think, I think you misread the implications of the existing draft wording. Its worse than you are reading it. The existing wording doesn't say that the program aborts. Not does it say that this would be an error condition (potentially catchable via iostat). It just says that it is "prohibitted". That means that a program that does such is non-conforming and the compiler can do anything in that situation (WWIII, etc.). This leaves open quite realistic possibilities that the compiler might abort, might overwrite the existing file, might automatically choose a new name, whatever. In other words, it basically is unspecified what happens. We just wimped out and avoided that question. For a feature that has "protection against name collisions" as it's first-listed justification, this doesn't seem like very good protection. I ought to be surprised that we didn't catch this before. Probably just illustrates that we didn't really do a good job of reviewing and thinking through the details of the proposal. Myself included in the "we". -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain