Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: An exercise in futility (was Results of the UGLY code)
Keywords: Cumulative_Annual_Pocket_Part
Message-ID: <83515@sun.uucp>
Date: 3 Jan 89 20:47:34 GMT
References: <583@mbph.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 47

In article <583@mbph.UUCP> hybl@mbph.UUCP (Albert Hybl  Dept of Biophysics  SM) writes:
>
> history deleted
>
>Steve has shown that the USENET can be used to rapidly discover
>ambiguities in a language standard.  Discussions in this newsgroup  
>can propose corrective language to eliminate ambiguities from
>the standard.  The real problem is how to incorporate the new
>language in a standard that has been chiseled in stone?  

As mentioned by others, the standard happens to "outlaw" the code in
question. 
>
>After our law makers write and pass laws, the laws appear in a
>publication of state or federal statutes.  The legislature
>will try to correct a discovered flaw or ambiguity in a law
>during their next session.  In rare cases, a special
>session may be called to tackle the problem.  Ambiguities in
>the law can also be resolved by the courts.  All new laws,
>recently revised laws and notes of court cases are placed in
>the "Cumulative Annual Pocket Part" which is placed in the
>back of the appropriate volume of the statutes.

Our ANSI comittee is similar. It sits in judgement of x3.8-1978, and
this question was brought to them, and they decided that the plain
meaning of the standard is that the code is WRONG. Thus compilers are
allowed to do whatever they want.
>
>The purpose of the Fortran ANSI X3.9 1978 standard "is to
>promote portability of FORTRAN programs for use on a variety
>of data processing systems."  The result of Steve's survey
>shows that not even a simple double do loop is immune to
>ambiguity when tested for horizontal portability.  His example
>and others (see Fortech Forum, Vol 2 pages 5-6; Fortran
>Forum, Vol 4 pages 19-20 and Fortran Forum Vol 6 pages 10-11)
>proves that computer language standards need a "Cumulative
>Annual Pocket Part."  Without it, the hope for a horizontally
>portable standard is an exercise in futility.
>

Issues brought before the comittee can be read about in the minutes of
the meetings. Subscriptions are about $150/yr. Sign up as an Observer.
A condensed and cleaned up version should appear periodically, and
FORTEC Forum would be a good venue.

Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus