Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!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: <1847@convex.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 89 02:34:08 GMT References: <:> <1073@cernvax.UUCP> <608@mbph.UUCP> Sender: news@convex.UUCP Reply-To: psmith@convex.com (Presley Smith) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 21 In article bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes: <<<< Text Deleted >>>> > >I think your proposal turns the process upside-down. Vendor extensions >should be the "proving ground" for language evolution. Only when a >language feature has proven to be: 1) implementable; 2) widely used; and 3) >portable to at least some degree, should it be standardized. I have no >objection to standardizing extensions, once they have proven to be useful, >for those extensions that are used by a small segment of users. But I >don't think the standardization should come first; first one must prove >that the perceived need does in fact exist, and that there are no serious >impediments to implementation. >-- If only X3J3 had adopted that philosophy in Fortran 8x instead of refusing to standardize existing practice and producing different syntax and semantics just so it would be different. Oh well, great idea. Maybe in Fortran 9x.