Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!brainerd From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: X3 Vote on Fortran 8x Message-ID: <429@unmvax.unm.edu> Date: 20 Oct 89 16:02:27 GMT References: <2192@convex.UUCP> <426@unmvax.unm.edu> Distribution: comp.lang.fortran Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque Lines: 48 In article , mccalpin@masig3.masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes: > > Another way to look at this is to say that the committee is not > interested in replacing a language that works with a language that has > not even been implemented yet, until the new language proves itself in > the field. > In the usual case, a programming language standard has never been implemented. Depending on the language, various parts of it have been implemented, so one can only argue about how much of it has not been proven. In the case of the proposed 8x, a very large part (Fortran 77) has been implemented widely and most of the other features have been implemented as vendor extensions or in other languages. > I got the impression from Presley's message that the extended Fortran > standard will still be a joint ANSI/ISO standard. Is this incorrect? > Yes, essentially. As a member of ISO, ANSI can adopt an ISO standard; ANSI also can adopt additional or different standards. The recent X3 vote says they want Fortran 77 to be an additional standard (it is unlikely that ISO will retain it as a standard). There are still several steps to be taken before it is certain that there will be a common ANSI and ISO Fortran standard. Another sense in which they are joint is that ISO asked ANSI (X3J3) to develop _an_ ISO Fortran standard. I doubt they will ever do that again. > > . . . It amazes me that people who claim to be experts > >in the business of computing (or any other, for that matter) can formally > >vote to change the basic goals and design specs of a project that is ^^^^^^^ > >in a final testing phase and believe that the product produced is consistent > >with the new goals and specs. > > I think it is fascinating that you think that this language is in the > "final testing phase", when the language has never even been > implemented! It would be far more accurate to say that the language > is in the final _specification_ phase. > Sorry to eliminate your fascination, but I don't think that. ANSI/X3 can control only the standardization of the language, not its implementation. So the "project" refers to standardization. The project for which X3 is revising goals is in its final "testing" phase, i.e., the public review. -- Walt Brainerd Unicomp, Inc. brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 2002 Quail Run Dr. NE Albuquerque, NM 87122 505/275-0800