Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!uflorida!haven!umbc3!mbph!hybl
From: hybl@mbph.UUCP (Albert Hybl  Dept of Biophysics  SM)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Character aliases are Satanic exten
Summary: Why did X3J3 insert the suicide gene?
Message-ID: <597@mbph.UUCP>
Date: 23 May 89 15:16:38 GMT
References: <592@mbph.UUCP> <50500129@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
Lines: 59


In article <87@unmvax.unm.edu> from brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu
(Walt Brainerd), Walt writes:
>As usual, there are two sides to the coin.
I'd like to see the other side of that coin; I think the game is
rigged--pure bunco!

>It allows implementors (not just IBM and DEC, but people doing all
>kinds of experimental projects into which they want to embed Fortran)
>to add things to the language and still be standard.
_BUT NOT PORTABLE!_  Why not just call you experiment HAL-2001?

>The standards  committee is attacked frequently for "inventing new
>stuff" (it usually is not put this politely).
I have seen evidence of some NRA-like attacks organized by certain
vendors; the selfsame "experimentalist" dead set on preventing the
language from being truly portable.

>This extension scheme allows "new stuff" to be tried out in real
>implementations providing a better chance of getting it right when
>it is standardized.
Like the muddled why that the character type has been implemented,
or the short sighted way that the binary write statement was specified
or the gross omission of the DO ...  ENDDO control loops, or ...  
I think that the _Standards Organization_ must retain absolute control
over the language to provide adjudication of implementation disputes
and to promote timely enhancements to the language.  Furthermore, it
is important to protect the vendors from consumer pressure.  The
standards committee not the vendors must be responsive to market
pressures--that is, if we want a _portable_ standard.

>Nice examples of extensions that didn't come primarily from major
>vendors occurred in the multitude of preprocessors in the 1970s.
I think that preprocessors are excellent tools.  CLEAN77 looks to be
an useful preprocessing filter program.   I frequently execute one
or more edit macros to filter the nonstandard clamjamfry you appear to
be pandering.  I have occasionally used RATFOR.  I make extensive use
of the C language CPP preprocessor to handle the insertion of "INCLUDE"
code snippets, to provide conditional insertion of processor specific
features of the target system, and to use #define for token replacement
to effectively equivalence symbolic names to the dummy arguments of a
subroutine [See  Hybl (1987) _Fortec Forum_ Vol 6, No 6 Pages 10-11].
NONE OF THESE OPERATIONS REQUIRE SECTIONS 1.3.2.(4) OR 1.4 TO MAKE
THEM LEGAL.

>Their existence allowed me to argue (successfully, of course) for
>putting the IF...ELSE IF..ELSE.. END IF into Fortran 77.  Otherwise,
>it would not be there now.
Thanks.  But why did X3J3 insert the suicide gene?  Sections
1.3.2.(4) and 1.4 guarantee that the objective of portability will
never be achieved!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Hybl, PhD.              Office UUCP: uunet!mimsy!mbph!hybl
Department of Biophysics       Home   UUCP: uunet!mimsy!mbph!hybl!ah
University of Maryland                CoSy: ahybl
School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD  21201                 Phone: (301) 328-7940 (Office)
----------------------------------------------------------------------