Re: [TUHS] {TUHS} efl

Re: [TUHS] {TUHS} efl

[Douglas McIlroy]

> there was a commercial package called Spag i which claimed to un-spagatti-ify your code which i always wanted but, could never afford.

You needed struct(1) in v7. It did precisely that, converting Fortran
to Ratfor. Amazingly (to me, anyway) it embodied a theorem: a Fortran
program has a canonical form. People found the converted code to be
easier to understand--even when they had written the original code
themselves.

Doug

Re: [TUHS] {TUHS} efl

[Chris Torek]

>You needed struct(1) in v7.

You mentioned this before
(https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2020-March/020670.html).

Personally, I don't know why Brenda Baker isn't famous.

>People found the converted code to be easier to understand--even
>when they had written the original code themselves.

I ran it on a number of Fortran programs in the EE department
at the U of MD.  When it *didn't* resolve loops into Ratfor
style WHILE constructs and the like, it usually meant there was
a bug.  I found at least two or three bugs this way.

Chris