Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!unmvax!brainerd
From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Pointer examples and 8x
Summary: I agree completely.
Message-ID: <178@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 89 00:48:14 GMT
References: <646hallidayd@yvax.byu.edu>
Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
Lines: 39

In article <646hallidayd@yvax.byu.edu>, hallidayd@yvax.byu.edu writes:
> Walt, is this true?!?!?
> (message <168@unmvax.unm.edu>)
> >...
> >that the addition of modules and derived types was at least, if not more,
> >important (but we need to parameterize the derived types to be useful--
> >this was removed as a "simplification").
>           ^^^^^^^       !?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> >
> >Walt Brainerd   Unicomp, Inc.  brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
> 
> Sounds real **BAD** to me!!
> 
I am afraid it is true and it IS real BAD.

For example, if you define a new data type "MATRIX" to do the
obvious things with the obvious matrix arithmetic operations,
there is no way to allow the programmer to declare both a 10x10
matrix and a 100x100 matrix using the; same type.  Shades of old Pascal.
It might also be nice to have the "kind" (single or double precision)
be a parameter of the MATRIX data type.

I hope you will comment during the public review!
> 
> (FLAME ON --- sorry, I don't usually do this, but...)
> (NOT directed at Walt Brainerd --- he seems quite sensible)
> 
> As I pointed out to the committee last summer, we need Fortran to be
> _innovative_, not just slightly improved (or young physicist, like myself,
> will go elsewhere).  Do they _really_ want Fortran to remain ``FORtrash''
> in our vernacular?
> 
> (FLAME OFF)
> 
I can't consider this a flame at me as I think I have supported this
philosophy for the last 12 years, but X3J3 has become more and more
reactionary in recent years.  I am not as sure of the "sensible" bit.

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