Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!boise.Eng.Sun.COM!wsb From: wsb@boise.Eng.Sun.COM (Walt Brainerd) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: What to call next version Summary: great idea Message-ID: <7876@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 12 Feb 91 17:29:25 GMT References: <7797@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <14244@lanl.gov> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Lines: 33 In article , lamson@el1.crd.ge.com (scott h lamson) writes: > > 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. > We are starting to get some great constructive ideas. Those of us pushing for adoption of modules in Fortran 90 thought this is exactly the way they should be used. We thought perhaps some modules could be standardized at the same time as Fortran 90, but we spent most of the last 5 years fighting off people who wanted to eliminate modules, rather than spending the time developing a few standard modules. Irving Chidsey said we should have smaller revisions in less time. One way to accomplish this is through standardized modules. Anyone can propose a standard module and it does not have to accompany a revision of Fortran, as Keith Bierman pointed out, so we could have a sparse matrix module just as soon as folks can do the work! As another example, I think most, if not all, of the POSIX .9 Fortran binding could be done as a Fortran 90 module. Other things, like a "parallel Fortran" probably can't be done this way, but such things might be accomplished in less than 10-12 years if the appropriate things are done with modules. -- Walt Brainerd Sun Microsystems, Inc. wsb@eng.sun.com MS MTV 5-40 Mountain View, CA 94043 415/336-5991