Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!brainerd
From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x
Message-ID: <156@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 89 15:38:04 GMT
References: <150@unmvax.unm.edu> <13941@lanl.gov>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
Lines: 26

In article <13941@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <150@unmvax.unm.edu>, by brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd):
> > [...]
> > If you think of a pointer as just an ADDRESS
> > (possibly one that can be incremented and multiplied by 7, etc.),
> > (this sort of thing certainly has occurred in Fortran implementions)
> > then the proposed Fortran pointers do not fit with that model.
> > [...
> 
> That is _exactly_ the model of pointers I have in mind (with the addition of
> typed pointers so static type checking of the pointee is possible).

Then it is not incomplete semantics or whatever; it is just a simple
disagreement on what the pointer facililty ought to be, if any.
Discussion with X3J3 members, rational discussion of the tecnical issues
in this forum, and comments during the public review are all good ways
to try to change things, but the following doesn't help much.  At least
2/3 of X3J3 members voted the current model over the other--that does not
mean they are right or that they cannot be conviced otherwise.  It does
mean (by the rules imposed on X3J3 from above) that it takes another 2/3
vote to change or remove the feature.

> (I think this whole thing is a clever form of revenge for the bad public
> review last time.)

Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.  brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu