Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ames!skipper!elxsi!maine From: maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: The Standard for Fortran 77 (Re: intrinsic) Message-ID: Date: 20 Dec 90 03:57:53 GMT References: <1990Dec20.112143.21877@qut.edu.au> Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Lines: 46 In-reply-to: zctsfisher@qut.edu.au's message of 20 Dec 90 16:21:43 GMT On 20 Dec 90 16:21:43 GMT, zctsfisher@qut.edu.au said: zctsfisher> The standard for Fortran 77 is of course ANSI X3.9-1978 zctsfisher> and this standard is easily accessible and clear. It takes zctsfisher> only a small effort to learn your way around it. There is zctsfisher> no need to debate, as this group often does, what is in zctsfisher> the standard. It is only necessary to read it. ... zctsfisher> I only go to compiler supplier's handbooks when I zctsfisher> specifically wish to do something which cannot be done zctsfisher> efficiently in proper Fortran or ... Amen! In the case of one of our vendors, who I'll refrain from naming, I tried unsucessfully to get them to throw out 90+% of their manual and instead sell copies of the standard, letting their manual document only deviations, extensions, and implementation specifics. I found the vendor manual to be poorly organized, poorly written, imprecise, and occasionally blatantly wrong on subjects that were well covered in the standard and were not system-dependent. The manual was obviously a low-priority effort that did not get the attention needed to do a good job. I tried to convince them that if they refrained from trying to paraphrase the standard in their own words, but put their effort in documenting the things that the standard doesn't, they could produce a more useful document for less work. I never did succeed. Although this was a particularly bad case, I'd offer the same advice to other vendors also. Although not tutorial, the standard is not really hard to read for someone used to reading technical documentation (the only kind of people that bother reading vendor manuals anyway). It is clearer than many vendor manuals and this isn't surprising. A lot of work went into the standard, and if you want to write something that is clearer, while still complete and accurate, it is going to take a lot of work. Now if you want to skip the complicated questions and present the basics in a tutorial fashion, that's another matter, but a good vendor manual can't get by with skipping the complicated questions. This isn't to say the standard is "perfect" (whatever that word means). Just that supplemental documentation should address the areas of imperfection instead of trying to paraphrase the large body of it that is fine as it stands. -- Richard Maine maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov [130.134.64.6]