🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5837@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <4610:Nov1323:35:0390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> >   [ as another supposed counterexample, an unreadable rendition of: ]
> Look who's talking.  You're the one that always flattens them out to
> unreadible one-liners.

This is much more readable than your huge cut-and-paste format. Remember
the importance of context: it's much easier to read things that fit on
one page. My version below takes four lines, shows the variables and
procedures clearly, and doesn't distract the reader.

> >   [ int a; main() { ... sub1(&a); } ]
> >   [        sub1(x) { ... sub2(x); sub3(x); } ]
> >   [ int a; sub2(y) { ... } ]
> >   [ int b; sub3(z) { ... } ]
> > Now a and b are GLOBAL! My solution DOES detect what aliasing goes on!
> Really?  I'm sorry.  I don't see it.

Fortran does not have separate compilation like C. It does not have
static variables like C. Hence a and b are visible throughout---though
your C version does not reflect this accurately. The partitions for
sub1() include a and b, as do the partitions for sub2() and sub3().

Since you apparently didn't understand what I was saying, here goes
again:

> > Sorry for shouting, but I'm getting really sick of your unjustified
> > attacks. If your variables have visibility as in Fortran, it *works*. If
> > you're not talking about a program that can be expressed the same way in
> > Fortran, then you're not talking about the same problem.

---Dan