Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!ags
From: ags@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X comments
Message-ID: <5788@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Sun, 15-Nov-87 18:22:04 EST
Article-I.D.: j.5788
Posted: Sun Nov 15 18:22:04 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Nov-87 01:04:01 EST
References: <50500015@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <50500016@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: ags@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 25

In article <50500016@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>Common blocks are the standard way of allocating global memory in Fortran,
>and have been since the 1950's. I don't see them as unnecessary. If they
>are removed, about 90% of all the Fortran programs I now use will break.

You miss the point.  F8X still supports common blocks for compatibility
with old programs.  What I meant was that common blocks are not needed for
writing new programs.  When I asked "why burden implementors with features
that are unnecessary?"  I was referring to the proposal that F8X should
allow mixing character with noncharacter data in the same common block,
which is not allowed in FORTRAN 77.

If your existing programs conform to the FORTRAN 77 standard, then they do
not mix character with non-character variables in the same common block.
Therefore they will still work under Fortran 8X.  If you are developing new
programs under F8X, there is no need to use common blocks at all.  Therefore
there is no need for the proposed change.

Future versions of FORTRAN may eventually do away with common blocks, but 
this does not necessarily mean that old programs will have to be scrapped.
It should not be difficult to automate the conversion of common blocks into
modules.
-- 
Dave Seaman	  					
ags@j.cc.purdue.edu