Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!chidsey
From: chidsey@smoke.BRL.MIL (Irving Chidsey )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Extensions
Message-ID: <11130@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 22 Sep 89 12:17:29 GMT
References: <:> <1073@cernvax.UUCP> <BILL.89Sep7141011@hcx1.ssd.harris.com> <608@mbph.UUCP> <BILL.89Sep20094249@hcx3.ssd.harris.com>
Reply-To: chidsey@brl.arpa (Irving Chidsey (INF) <chidsey>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 23

In article <BILL.89Sep20094249@hcx3.ssd.harris.com> bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes:
<
<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.
<--
<Bill Leonard

Amen!	Let the extensions be tried in the marketplace, and only go with
the ones that gather a following.

					Irv
-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>