Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ags
From: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: An exercise in fultility
Keywords: tradmark validation_suite portability
Message-ID: <3704@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 89 15:12:17 GMT
References: <584@mbph.UUCP>
Reply-To: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 41

In article <584@mbph.UUCP> hybl@mbph.UUCP (Albert Hybl  Dept of Biophysics  SM) writes:
>I think that the committee is without real power!  They
>can not enforce the standard so their panegyrist says
>'When the code is WRONG, the compilers are allowed to
>do whatever they want.'  If the name FORTRAN is not a
>registered trademark, anyone can use it to sell anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently you would prefer that the committee be selective in which parts
of the standard they should enforce.  In particular, you would like for
them to ignore:

	1.3.2. _Exclusions_.  This standard does not specify:

	    [...]

	  (4) The results when the rules of this standard fail to establish
	      an interpretation.

and:

	1.4. _Conformance_

	  [...]

	A processor conforms to this standard if it executes
	standard-conforming programs in a manner that fulfills the
	interpretations prescribed herein.  A standard-conforming
	processor may allow additional forms and relationships provided
	that such additions do not conflict with the standard forms and
	relationships.  [...]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to lobby for this part of the standard to be changed, that is
certainly your right.  But to accuse the committee of "not enforcing the
standard" PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE ENFORCING THE STANDARD seems like
twisted logic to me.

-- 
Dave Seaman	  					
ags@j.cc.purdue.edu