Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news
From: halliday@hamblin.math.byu.edu (David Halliday)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran Extended Standard
Message-ID: <1990Oct9.213414.19147@hamblin.math.byu.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 90 21:34:14 GMT
References: <502@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Usenet News)
Reply-To: hallidayd@physc1.byu.edu (David Halliday)
Organization: Brigham Young University -- Mathematics Department
Lines: 56

In article <502@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, pmontgom@euphemia.math.ucla.edu
(Peter Montgomery) writes:
> 
> 	I just received an announcement about a two-month public review 
> of X3.198-199x, Programming Language Fortran Extended.  It says in part
> 
> 	"Programming Language Fortran Extended was previously announced for 
> public review as a replacement for ANSI X3.9-1978, FORTRAN Language
> Standard.  Since that public review, it has been decided
> that the Fortran Extended language will, when approved, be a 
> companion specification to ANSI X3.9-1978, not a replacement."
> 
> 	Is this a new name for Fortran 8x?  If not, does
> anyone know 8x features are included here?

    ``Fortran Extended'' is indeed the name now given to Fortran 90 in the
United States by ANSI.  However, as I understand it, Fortran 90 will be the
name of the international standard.  (I personally do not agree with the
X3 committee on keeping ``FORTRAN 77'' as a full standard and having
``Fortran 90'' as an extension thereto.  I would much rather have
``FORTRAN 77'' as a sanctioned subset of ``Fortran 90''.  But what do I
know.)

> 
> 	Comments must be RECEIVED by December 18, 1990
> (just after my final exams ...).  The document costs $70
> for domestic orders, and is available from Global Engineering
> Documents, Inc., 2805 McGraw Ave., Irvine, CA 92714,
> (714)261-1455 or (800)854-7179.
> 
> 	[BTW, I received responses to my comments on the
> 1989 draft of Fortran 8x last week, 10 months after
> submitting them.  X3J3 agreed with some of the typos I
> pointed out, but not on any of my important requests,
> such as extending the intrinsic SQRT function to
> return the truncated square root of an integer
> or adding a new intrinsics to support multiple precision
> integer arithmetic.]

    I just received the responses to my comments today!  The worst problem
I have is that the standards committee apparently misunderstood some of my
``most important'' comments---I'll have to try again.  (The main thing I
dislike about the present proposed standard is the machine dependent 
``KIND'' numbers, and the UGLY syntax they engender as applied to
constants---the proposed standard of 1988 was much better in this regard
IMHO.)

> 
> --
>         Peter L. Montgomery 
>         pmontgom@MATH.UCLA.EDU 
>         Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
> If I spent as much time on my dissertation as I do reading news, I'd
graduate.

    ME TO.