Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb@chiba.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Languages Marketing -- MTS)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x
Message-ID: <111223@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 89 18:20:33 GMT
References: <1536@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <13949@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - SPD Languages Marketing -- MTS)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 21

In article <13949@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

> ... stuff about the old f8x vs the new f8x deleted
>

>I think that RANGE and IDENTIFY are _MUCH_ better at array sectioning
>than the present POINTER proposal is.  For recursive data structures
>I think that they should be provided as just that: recursive structures
>without explicit pointers required.  Aside from these, I can't think
>of any other need for pointers.  I think that Fortran should not have
>pointers introduced.

Many agreed; otherwise "old" f8x would have had them. Unfortunately
public comment from bot the US and Europe was militantly for pointers.
While it would have been possible to have both sets of features, SET
RANGE and friends were sacrified on the altar of simpiler is better ...

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     *)