Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury!phys169 Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: <1991May21.113540.783@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> From: phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Date: 21 May 91 11:35:40 +1200 References: <3246@travis.csd.harris.com> <1991May10.002337.22669@ariel.unm.edu> Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Lines: 52 In article , 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? >>... >>"general", "deprecated" and "exploratory". Implementation of exploratory >>features would be encouraged, but not required. We could throw into >>this new category anything we're not sure about but would like to try. > > Please! The quest for the current "standard" was already plagued > with enough "exploratory" ideas... > I like the 5-year idea, if only because it might tend to limit > the scope of work to a reasonable amount. > Suppose there was a new "standard" every 11 years (say, and change the name of Fortran 90 to Fortran 88 for neatness! :-), but a convention amongst compiler writers and users about twice as often, so significant worthwhile ideas could be discussed and organised - not quite to the point of standardisation - years before Fortan 99 (or whatever). Then the job of taking existing features and munging them into a standard would be easier (because the main ones would have been partially standardised at least among compiler producers), and the general Fortran community would have had plenty of time to debate their worth beforehand. So... 1 a new Fortan "N" comes out 2 compiler writers produce something that can handle N (and probably N-11) 3 in year (N+4) people discuss new features and try to agree on syntax & naming, so if two compilers add a feature your programs can run on both; these additions to the standard (which mustn't upset compiling Fortran N) are called the Fortran N+4 "convention", not a standard, and compilers that claim to follow the convention need not have all new features, but those they do have should conform. Compilers with other extensions can't claim to follow the convention, so people will be reluctant to use them, so one large company adding significant features (that would otherwise be something the standards guys have to later thrash out) would be rare. 4 New features that came along in N+4 and perhaps N+8 would be considered for going into the Fortran N+11 standard. The job would be easier and the discussion process, as well as the compiler-writing processes, would be much faster. 5 N=N+11 6 goto 1 (Just my two cents worth) Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.