Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!texsun!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards
Message-ID: <1692@convex.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 89 21:29:03 GMT
References: <1598@convex.UUCP> <308@unmvax.unm.edu> <BILL.89Sep7131506@hcx1.ssd.harris.com> <369@unmvax.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@convex.com  (Presley Smith)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 31

In article <369@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:

Deleted text...

>
> Contrary to your 
>insinuations, X3J3 has devoted a lot of time to trying to ensure that
>this is the case.  A subgroup (led by Mike Metcalf of CERN, I think),
>did a complete reading of the two to check this.  Of course, even
>after very extensive testing there may be a bug, but somehow, I don't
>think many people will think this is justification for dropping the project!

1.  I don't believe I've ever said that the project should be dropped.

    If people want 8x, then they should have 8x.  If people want 77,
    they should be able to have 77, without having all of 8x wrapped
    around it.   That's what the debate is about.  If the two are
    separate standards, both groups get what they claim they want.

2.  Since you are an officer of X3J3, you should know who's the head
    of the subgroups (or be able to look it up in all the piles of 
    mail that you get from the committee...).   There's a major 
    difference in my mind between "a complete reading of the two"
    and a direct comparison line by line to be sure nothing was changed.  


But, I have dropped out of this debate because I don't see that it's 
productive.  X3 will determine the outcome at this point.  They have
not asked Walt, Bill, or me for our opinions on the subject.  

So, I will once again drop out of the debate.