Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!osf.org!andyj
From: andyj@osf.org (Andy Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Standards
Keywords: Fortran 90 standards
Message-ID: <21649@paperboy.OSF.ORG>
Date: 3 May 91 16:25:51 GMT
References: <12528@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <22913@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@OSF.ORG
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Lines: 40

In article <22913@lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> In article <12528@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, wsb@boise.Eng.Sun.COM (Walt Brainerd) writes:
|> |> [...]
|> |> Standardizing existing practice: This is one of the greatest
|> |> red herrings in the development of Fortran, at least as presented
|> |> by some folks.  Of course, everything in Fortran 90 is "existing
|> |> practice"!  It's just a question of who has been practicing what.
|> |> [...]
|> 
|> Well, I am not aware of _any_ language or _any_ implementation of
|> any language which has "pointers" implemented in the undesireable
|> manner that the Fortran 90 proposal defines.  It is _not_ existing
|> practice.  Independent of that, it is simply not a good design.

Sure you are, it's called FORTRAN.  The model that is used for POINTERs is
exactly analogous to the existing pointers in most Fortran implementations:
dummy arguments.

If you are looking for another language which uses this pointer model, the
HAL/S language (used for all of the on-board programming on the Shuttle
computers) has NAME variables which are almost identical in syntax and 
functionality to the Fortran 90 pointers.

|> [...]                  Like all other arguments, this one is
|> |> raised just precisely when someone wants to argue for or against
|> |> a particular feature and they conveniently forget it in other cases.
|> 
|> I, for one, never objected to pointers on the basis of existing
|> practice.  I would oppose the current model of pointers even if it
|> had a long (and, presumably dark) pedigree.  It is interesting that
|> I have heard the present pointer proposal _defended_ on the basis
|> of existing practice.  I guess the argument must go something like:
|> "it's common practice for languages to have pointers, so we'll invent
|> something totally bizarre and _call_ it a pointer facility so we
|> can defend it on the basis of existing practice."
|> 
|> J. Giles

-- 
E. Andrew Johnson, OSF     andyj@osf.org