[Info-vax] RMS - Wish list

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 10/19/2021 11:09 PM, Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:50:42 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/19/2021 7:28 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:22:28 PM UTC+13, tink... at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Another wish, get DCL to default to VAR not VFC files, or possibly STMLF. I'm sure 40years
>>>> ago there was a good reason for VFC but now not so much.
>>>
>>> The likely reason being this was the (only?) way to represent FORTRAN carriage control.
>> ????
>>
>> The question was about DCL not Fortran.
>>
>> And Fortran carriage control is not RFM=VFC but RAT=FTN and actual
>> control in first data byte (and default for Fortran text files
>> is RFM=VAR).
> 
> Arne, you got this one all wrong.

That happens.

> It is about DCL first and Fortran is secondary.

That was what I started noting.

The question was about DCL switching from RFM=VFC to RFM=VAR.

And I saw that as a DCL question not a Fortran question.

Especially since Fortran by default use RFM=VAR. And the Fortran
magic is in RAT not RFM.

> DCL's VFC is a superset. Cobol, Fortran and regular files are a subset.

Not sure what that really means.

Fortran by default use VAR.

> The whole point is that DCL VFC output files can handle Fortran style output.
> If you submit a batch job with in there DEFINE/USER FOR0xx SYS$OUTPUT before your RUN <FORTRAN_PROGRAM>
> DCL/RMS will 'eat' the 1H' ' space or whatever and generate newlines - or not - as required.

Interesting - I did not know that.

But would that feature break if the log file was VAR instead of VFC?

Arne