Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Fortran > Re: advance=no ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 31 of 46 Topic 8227 of 8774
Post > Topic >>

Re: advance=no problem

by robert.corbett@[EMAIL PROTECTED] May 14, 2008 at 12:39 AM

On May 14, 12:11 am, "Jugoslav Dujic" <jdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> robert.corb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> | On May 13, 8:05 pm, robert.corb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> || On May 13, 6:33 pm, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Maine) wrote:
> |
> || It does look as if I got it wrong.  Here is an example.  Given
> || the program
> ||
> ||       PROGRAM MAIN
> ||         OPEN (10, FILE='XXX')
> ||         REWIND 10
> ||         WRITE (10, '(A)', ADVANCE='NO') 'ABCDEF'
> ||         WRITE (10, '(T1, A)') 'GHI'
> ||       END
> |
> | When I compile and run the program with a handful of different
> | compilers, ifort 8.0 appears to be the odd man out.  Do more
> | recent versions of ifort still write
> |
> | GHIDEF
> |
> | to the file XXX?   Do other implementations?
>
> Intel Fortran 10.1 for Windows (latest) produces
>
> ABCDEFGHI

Thank you.  That does seem to settle what the common
interpretation is.  I still think the standard should
be clearer, but current implementations all appear to
handle the tab edit descriptors the same way.

Bob Corbett
 




 46 Posts in Topic:
advance=no problem
rudra <bnrj.rudra@[EMA  2008-05-12 06:22:39 
Re: advance=no problem
rudra <bnrj.rudra@[EMA  2008-05-12 06:40:16 
Re: advance=no problem
Gordon Sande <g.sande@  2008-05-12 13:50:13 
Re: advance=no problem
harper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 11:47:46 
Re: advance=no problem
tholen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 19:26:06 
Re: advance=no problem
glen herrmannsfeldt <g  2008-05-12 11:43:13 
Re: advance=no problem
tholen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 20:12:12 
Re: advance=no problem
Janne Blomqvist <foo@[  2008-05-12 23:32:04 
Re: advance=no problem
glen herrmannsfeldt <g  2008-05-12 13:09:41 
Re: advance=no problem
Janne Blomqvist <foo@[  2008-05-13 00:48:07 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-12 20:32:24 
Re: advance=no problem
Janne Blomqvist <foo@[  2008-05-12 23:55:24 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 16:31:12 
Re: advance=no problem
glen herrmannsfeldt <g  2008-05-12 15:47:07 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-13 00:42:30 
Re: advance=no problem
GaryScott <garylscott@  2008-05-13 07:21:14 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 08:57:42 
Re: advance=no problem
GaryScott <garylscott@  2008-05-13 09:46:51 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-13 15:59:48 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-13 23:10:25 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-13 17:05:52 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-14 00:38:23 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-14 00:57:05 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 18:33:40 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-14 02:48:43 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-13 20:05:16 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 20:45:00 
Re: advance=no problem
Steve Lionel <Steve.Li  2008-05-14 10:07:48 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-13 23:36:34 
Re: advance=no problem
"Jugoslav Dujic"  2008-05-14 09:11:21 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-14 00:39:12 
Re: advance=no problem
GaryScott <garylscott@  2008-05-14 07:18:32 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 07:47:59 
Re: advance=no problem
Ron Shepard <ron-shepa  2008-05-14 10:11:23 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 12:12:11 
Re: advance=no problem
glen herrmannsfeldt <g  2008-05-14 13:01:00 
Re: advance=no problem
glen herrmannsfeldt <g  2008-05-14 11:09:33 
Re: advance=no problem
GaryScott <garylscott@  2008-05-14 08:22:03 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-14 18:41:44 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 12:12:11 
Re: advance=no problem
Gary Scott <garylscott  2008-05-14 20:59:30 
Re: advance=no problem
"James Giles" &  2008-05-15 02:30:21 
Re: advance=no problem
nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 20:44:10 
Re: advance=no problem
robert.corbett@[EMAIL PRO  2008-05-14 23:19:22 
Re: advance=no problem
dongyuanxun <dongyuanx  2008-05-15 01:11:12 
Re: advance=no problem
GaryScott <garylscott@  2008-05-15 07:00:01 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Oct 12 23:31:07 CDT 2008.