Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards
Message-ID: <1608@convex.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 89 15:14:57 GMT
References: <1598@convex.UUCP> <308@unmvax.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@mozart.UUCP (Presley Smith)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 61

In article <308@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:
>In article <1598@convex.UUCP>, psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes:
>> 
  
Walt is right... It was only changed in one place, in the introduction, which
now reads:


         "Any standard-conforming FORTRAN 77 program is standard
         conforming under this standard."  
   
>Page i is not part of the standard, so it doesn't matter, but I don't
>know why it was changed.  Page 1-2 of the STANDARD, lines 37-39 say
>"Any standard-conforming Fortran 77 program remains standard conforming
>under this standard, with the same interpretation;"
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, it makes one wonder why it was changed in one place and not the other.
If you look at page 1-2, you find a list of incompatibilities that are 
known.  In fact, if Walt... let me finish the sentence that you quoted
from 1-2.  It says:

 "Any standard-conforming Fortran 77 program remains standard conforming
 under this standard, with the same interpretation; however, see 1.4 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 regarding intrinsic procedures."

 The same paragraph goes on to say:

 "The following FORTRAN 77 features have different interpretations in 
  this standard:"  and lists 4 different items:

  1.  Processor supplied precision derived from a real constant.

  2.  The named variable in a DATA statment without the SAVE attribute.

  3.  Differences with padding in input records.     

  4.  The fact that there are additional intrinsic functions in 8x
      that might conflict with user defined functions. 

If it doesn't matter, why was it changed?   I worry that the committee 
just missed the one on page 1-2 and will remove it as part of the editorial
changes that are being done at the current time on the document that 
is out for public review.

For anyone that does not know, the committee is in the process of making
editorial changes to the document that is out for public review.  No 
additional functionality is allowed, but the committee is now trying 
to fix problems in the proposed standard while it's being reviewed...
So... what you see in public review may not be the final document.

>> 
>> Still think "Fortran 8x contains ALL of F77 as a subset"???  How many 
>> other examples are there?   NO ONE KNOWS!
>> 
>So far we have zero examples.

The standard documents all the KNOWN examples in 1.4.1.  In this complex
document, I expect that implementers will find several more when someone
really attempts to implement this...