Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!tank!ncar!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!ssd
From: ssd@sugar.uu.net (Scott Denham)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN 8x ... An intermediate standard?
Summary: intermediate standard, two hops, hindsight
Keywords: FORTRAN 8x
Message-ID: <2874@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 21 Oct 88 06:57:46 GMT
References: <656@convex.UUCP> <6148@june.cs.washington.edu> <867@ncar.ucar.edu>
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 19

In article <867@ncar.ucar.edu>, pack@acdpyr.ucar.edu (Dan Packman) writes:
 (Dan writes a very good case for an intermediate FORTRAN standard that
  would merely take care of "often included extensions")  
> 
> If we bit off a smaller piece for a standard, maybe we all could swallow it.
> Dan Packman     NCAR                         INTERNET: pack@acdpyr.UCAR.EDU

In hindsight, it would seem that exactly such an intermediate step might
have avoided the mess that the FORTRAN standard is in now.  Had the 
committee started after the '77 standard with less ambitious goals, we 
would likely have had that intermediate standard some time ago and have
been well on our way to the next one, which might not look too different
from what is now being proposed as FORTRAN 9X (I've given up on the "8").
But to try to do that now would seem to be counterproductive; it would
just land everybody back in the position of lobbying to make sure THEIR
ffavorite bit of the 8X standard got included in the interim. 
 
Scott Denham 
Western Atlas International