Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards
Message-ID: <1633@convex.UUCP>
Date: 30 Aug 89 22:02:14 GMT
References: <308@unmvax.unm.edu> <1608@convex.UUCP> <7560@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@convex.com (Presley Smith)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 66

In article <7560@microsoft.UUCP> bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) writes:
>>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:
>>
>
>Yeah, when Walt mentioned that, I ran around and checked the
>minutes and the action was never even recorded.  I was there, and the
>intent was clearly to remove that phrase from the draft.  Whoever
>suggested the wording messed up.  It should be a simple editorial change
>to fix up, especially in light of the fact that later in the paragraph
>it shows examples of places where standard-conforming 77 programs do not
>have the same interpretation.  They also missed the new specification that
>leading zeroes are insignificant in STOP and PAUSE statements (I know, 
>big deal).  I'll have to sit down and think about it, but I feel like
>there were others also.

Bob, I had not researched this, but made a note at the time that this was
a change in the upward compatibility position.  In looking through my
files I find this vote for this came on 2/17/89 at the Palo Alto meeting.
It's clear that the person making the changes to the proposed standard 
after that meeting failed to pick up part of the wording that was changed. 
The change comes from the December 1988 Letter Ballot Comments generated by
Len Moss of SLAC.  His proposal I on page 72 of the Chair's Ballot on S8.110
contains several parts per this summary:

  O.1  i/8: Delete ",with the same interpretation". [The new MVBITS and 
	    RANDOM intrinsic subroutines could change the interpretation
	    of a program and were not covered by the caveat in the section
	    notes...  ETC. 

	     ...

       1-1/7-8: Delete ",with the same interpretation...regarding 
		intrinsic procedures".
		 
              THIS WAS THE CHANGE THAT WAS NOT MADE...

       1-2/21: Change "procedures" to "functions" and after "FORTRAN 77"
	       add ",and for the first time in Fortran introduces 
	       several intrinsic subroutines".

These edits would have been applied to the S8.110 version of the   
document and then edited by the editorial committee at some point 
before the S8.112 document, which is the document that is out for public
review, was produced.   This vote was part of the vote on the summary in
document 112, "Chairs Ballot Comments,  X3J3/234 Adoption Recommended by
Ad Hoc Group",  approved by a vote of 32-0-2.  This vote was taken at
approximately 9:00 AM on 2/17/89 in Palo Alto.

You're certainly right.  It's just a failure to make the changes in the 
document as passed by the committee.

>>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...
>>
>

This is just one case where the document does not conform to what the 
committee voted to do.  Makes me worry that FORTRAN 77 may not be 
contained in this document in its original form.   Changes in wording
or mistakes made in changing the document may have introduced 
other incompatibilities even by mistake...