Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!chidsey
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status
Message-ID: <16169@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 16 May 91 12:25:34 GMT
References: <16101@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May12.190710.9294@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <RN.1221@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 51

In article <RN.1221@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA> userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) writes:
<In article <1991May12.190710.9294@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
<>In article <16101@smoke.brl.mil> chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) writes:
<>>       Could we not agree to add to Fortran every 5 years or so those
<>>new constructs which have proven to be valuable, discuss those directions
<>>that might be desirable to explore next, but to only standardize on that
<>>which was proven?
<> 
<>     I think this is an interesting idea.  I hope Irving doesn't mind if
<>I expand on it a bit.

	I hoped someone would.

<>     The current standard has two categories of constructs: "general"
<>and "deprecated".  (I'm not sure what terminology the standard actually
<>uses.  I trust my usage is clear enough.  The second class corresponds
<>to old language features retained only for compatibility and which may be
<>removed in the next round of standardization, while the first category refers to
<>everything else.)  Perhaps the next round should have three classes:
<>"general", "deprecated" and "exploratory".  Implementation of exploratory
<>features would be encouraged, but not required.  We could throw into
	Bunch deleted.
<> 
<>                                Marc R. Roussel
< 
<Please! The quest for the current "standard" was already plagued
<with enough "exploratory" ideas under the guise of "standardizing
<existing practice". There is enough work for a standards
<committee already without adding the tasks of compiler design and
<R&D. There _should_ be a suitable forum somewhere for exploring
<new directions, but it isn't the standards committee. They will
<be lucky if there is even a wide enough base of understanding of
<the effects of the new features by the time the next round is
<underway.
< 
<I like the 5-year idea, if only because it might tend to limit
<the scope of work to a reasonable amount.
< 
< Al Dunbar          | 

	I was only throwing out a subject for discussion.

	This is a fine forum.

								Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>