Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb@chiba.Sun.COM (chiba)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x
Message-ID: <109679@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Jun 89 05:30:05 GMT
References: <2716@elxsi.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (chiba)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 59

In article <2716@elxsi.UUCP> corbett@beatnix.UUCP (Bob Corbett) writes:
>How does one get the most recent ANSI Fortran 8x drafts?  Observer status with
>X3J3 does not cut it.  ELXSI has had observer status for the past two years and
>has yet to receive a copy of the draft standard.  All observer status buys is
>minutes of the X3J3 meetings (often long after they occurred).

You should be getting the minutes when the rest of us get them...
don't forget all of the folks who scribe them have jobs ....

I do not understand why you did not get the new draft; observers are
slated to get them. Send email to fortran@ibm they owned mailing the
last set out (but they used the labels generated by those who own the
mailing list). Mostly, I suspect you fell off (or never got on)
someone's list.

>
>The latest draft I have obtained is the March 1989 version.  After reading news
>about recent X3J3 meetings on the net, I expected the language to be in even
>worse shape than it was at the time of the first public review.  In fact, the
>language is much improved over the public review version.  If X3J3 continues to
>improve the language at the current rate, it should be ready for the next public
>review in just a couple of years.

The next review will probably be this fall. The rest of the world is
moderately happy and it seems likely that it will be an ISO standard soon.

>
>Pointers are the most significant addition to the language since the public
>review.  Pointers made it possible for X3J3 to remove some of the most bizarre
>features of the public review version of the language without losing any
>functionality.  However, the pointer mechanism described in the March 1989
>draft of the standard is itself somewhat bizarre.  It also lacks some of the
>functionality usually provided by pointers.

The object of the exercise is not to make fortran==C. There were
vendors and users... for the most part users wanted pointers and they
got what they demanded. If C pointers were introduced there would have
been even stronger objections (as it was, I think Cray's vote turned
from yes to no largely on the inclusion of pointers into the language
... this is only my opinion based on chats, their Public Comment may
be construed differently).

.... stuff about rare pointer usage

Those who really wanted the feature crafted proposals. They had a set
of things which they felt should be accomplished by a fortran pointer
facility, and took great pains to ensure that their needs were taken
care of. There is no reason why Elxsi couldn't have crafted a "clearly
superior" proposal. Even getting minutes late, and not being willing
to attend any meetings, text could have been supplied in the year
since it was clear that there would be a pointer added (due to public
demand).



Keith H. Bierman      |*My thoughts are my own. Only my work belongs to Sun*
It's Not My Fault     |	Marketing Technical Specialist    ! kbierman@sun.com
I Voted for Bill &    |   Languages and Performance Tools. 
Opus  (* strange as it may seem, I do more engineering now     *)