Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!exodus-bb!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 91 23:08:52 GMT References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 52 In-reply-to: bean@putter.wpd.sgi.com's message of 24 Apr 91 20:21:15 GMT In article <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> bean@putter.wpd.sgi.com (Bean Anderson) writes: Could someone post a note about the current state of the standard? I was not at the last meeting; but Gary Campbell was there representing us (sun). Regretfully, this was Gary's last meeting. Reading over the various published trip reports, the status would appear to be: *) The final edits to the ISO standard have been completed. ISO will probably finish the various procedural matters between September and October of this year. *) ANSI might finish before the end of this year. *) X3.9-1978 (FORTRAN 77) will continue to be a standard in the US _only_. Unless the rules change, it will not be evolved any further. *) I believe that the vote was 26-9 to accept the document as it stood after the edits. Two copies of the marked up document were carried to Walt Brainerd (by two different X3J3 members, to protect against lossage due to a plane crash). Voting against were the reps from: Microsoft, Convex, Cray, Lahey, Harris, DoD, Boeing, Unisys and DEC. It should be noted that an organizations rep votes aye or nay does not necessarily imply that the organization will or won't build, support, use, or fondle "Fortran90". The name of the standard appears a bit uncertain. As best I can tell, the ISO name is "Fortran" while the ANSI name is "Fortran Extended". Informally, committee folk speak of Fortran 90; but neither ISO nor ANSI seems to have accepted this bit of folklore. There is continuing work on a String module, which will probably be proposed as a collateral standard. One imagines/hopes that a variety of standardize modules will appear (e.g. all of BLAS1-3, LAPACK and other things come to mind). There is no reason to believe that such standards will necessarily come from X3J3; quite the contrary those closest to various problems should work out the solutions. X3J3 will have a new chair by next year. WG5 will be discussing what happens next ("Fortran 2000" who does what, when, how, etc.) at their next meeting in Lund. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043