Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status
Message-ID: <1991May16.194928.9222@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
References: <16101@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May12.190710.9294@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <RN.1221@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 19:49:28 GMT

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:
>>     The current standard has two categories of constructs: "general"
>>and "deprecated".
>>Perhaps the next round should have three classes:
>>"general", "deprecated" and "exploratory".
> 
>Please! The quest for the current "standard" was already plagued
>with enough "exploratory" ideas under the guise of "standardizing
>existing practice".

     That was (more or less) my point.  If we moved new and untried
features out of the main body of the standard and into an appendix, we
could both standardize existing practice and suggest new directions for
language development.  Currently, the only way to do this is to stick
everything into the standard, leading to the difficult process we have
just witnessed.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca