Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!corbett
From: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Corbett)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Answers, Observations, etc.
Message-ID: <31083@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Sep 89 05:24:10 GMT
References: <1651@convex.UUCP> <318@unmvax.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Robert Corbett)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24

In article <318@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:
>
>If this is what you really want, what is wrong with having F77 be a subset
>of F8x, both recognized standards and described in X3.9-19??.
>

     While I favor the idea of two separate standards, I would be willing
to support the idea of a single standard PROVIDED

          1)  the full text of ANSI X3.9-1978 is kept unchanged,

          2)  the Fortran 8x extensions are added in the form of
              a supplement, and

          3)  an implementation is allowed to claim conformance to
              the FORTRAN 77 subset of the standard even if it
              contains extensions in conflict with the Fortran 8x
              extensions.

                                         Faithfully yours,
                                         Bob Corbett
                                         uunet!elxsi!corbett
                                         ucbvax!sun!elxsi.com!corbett
                                         corbett@berkeley.edu