Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lanl!a!alm
From: alm@a.lanl.gov (Alex Marusak)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: yes vs. no on f8x
Message-ID: <884@a.lanl.gov>
Date: 20 Apr 89 18:24:00 GMT
References: <24130@beta.lanl.gov> <50500125@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 25

In article <50500125@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
% 
% . . .
% AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!  This simply isn't true!  Go reread the
% public comment draft!  If the rules in it are followed, the only features which
% could possibly be removed from F9x are the features labeled as being
% "obsolescent".  That list is quite short!  In particular, it does not
% . . .
% Please, people!  If you're going to complain about what's been proposed for
% Fortran 8x, try to get your facts straight and only complain about things that
% are actually there.

See, Kurt, here's another person who thinks that obsolescece and deprecation
actually mean something.  And he's strongly in FAVOR of 8x:

In article <MAINE.89Apr20095120@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov%, maine@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
% . . .
% Many of the deprecated features seem frankly out of place and in
% conflict with the "style" of the new language.  I intend to rapidly
% abandon these deprecated features when the Fortran compilers come out,
% regardless of whether the formal standard retains the list or not.
% It seems obvious that many of those features are in the new language
% only to ease the transition (admitedly an important thing to do if any
% new language is to catch on).
% . . .