Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!lamson From: lamson@el1.crd.ge.com (scott h lamson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: What to call next version Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 91 01:00:00 GMT References: <7797@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <14244@lanl.gov> <7822@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development Lines: 21 In-reply-to: wsb@boise.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 11 Feb 91 22:30:06 GMT In article <7822@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> wsb@boise.Eng.Sun.COM (Walt Brainerd) writes: > From: wsb@boise.Eng.Sun.COM (Walt Brainerd) > ..., but sometime > soon, people will be proposing the beginning of development > of Fortran 2000 (or whatever), so this is the time to start > discussing the fundamental philosophical and technical questions, > not in 2001 when it's all over again. In addition to starting speculations on Fortran 2000, I think it would be very useful to have some mechanism being put into place to standardize "modules" as they are developed, to avoid the F-77 situation where sparse matrix code is so difficult to share as most developers reinvent a sparse matrix data structure just enough incompatible with others that routines cannot be readily shared. -- Scott| ARPA: lamson@crd.ge.com Lamson| UUCP: uunet!crd.ge.com!lamson (518)387-5795| UUCP: uunet!sierra.crd.ge.com!lamson General Electric Corporate Research and Development