brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) (10/21/89)
The following are probably at least some of the reactions Keith Bierman referred to. I am going to assume that if they sent them to all of X3J3 and SC22, it is public (all of X3J3 documents, deliberations, and records are public). My apologies to Miles and David if this is not the case. In any case, it is too important to keep under cover. Apparantly, there are a few people who think the X3 vote is not a wonderful thing for the ENTIRE Fortran community! It has been argued that whether Fortran 77 is retained as a standard is strictly a US matter and others shouldn't be concerned; maybe from these items you can decide whether you agree with that position. The following are from Miles Ellis and David Muxworthy, both who have been very active in Fortran standardisation, both on X3J3 and ISO. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 OCT 89 10:57:28 BST From: CTCMILES%vax.oxford.ac.uk@RELAY.CS.NET To: x3j3@NCSA.NCSA.UIUC.EDU Subject: Re: X3 vote Status: RO Does X3 inhabit the same planet as the rest of us? > There was much discussion of the international implications of this vote. > Internationally, the Fortran Extended standard will be the SAME as the > ANSI Fortran Extended standard. ISO is producing a revision to the International Standard 1539-1980, which is identical to X3.9-1978. There has never been any suggestion that ISO should keep 1539-1980 and produce some new "Fortran Extended" standard. When Fortran 8x is adopted internationally it will REPLACE Fortran 77 as an international standard. If the US (i.e. X3) wishes to adopt different standards from those in use in the rest of the world that is its problem; but any consideration of the international implications of X3's vote would appear to have been confined to ignoring them. It is perhaps worth reminding everyone that only three weeks ago SC22, at its biennial plenary passed the following two resolutions (amongst many others): AH. Fortran ----------- ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 - records its intent that the second DP 1539 be the basis of the international Fortran standard and that in the interest of timely adoption of this standard no further changes should be made other than corrections of errors and inconsistencies in response to member body comments; and - to accelerate further the progress to DIS stage, requests the convenor of WG5 to convene a meeting of WG5 immediately after the end of the second DP ballot period if significant changes are requested in member body ballot comments. AS. Fortran 77 -------------- ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 - notes the interest of the US member body in retaining Fortran 77 as a national standard after the adoption of Fortran 8X; - notes also the technical recommendation of WG5 not to have more than one Fortran standard nor to have any subset; and - requests WG5 to work together with the US Fortran committee (ANSI X3J3) to find a solution which reconciles these conflicting positions, and report this to the next SC22 Advisory Group or plenary meeting. If X3's way of working together with WG5 "to find a solution which reconciles their conflicting positions" (last part of resolution AS) is to take its own decision without consulting ANY international body (or even its own Fortran subcommittee) then it seems clear that it has no intention whatsoever of playing a serious part in INTERNATIONAL standardisation activities, and I would suggest that SC22 may well (and certainly should) remove all responsibility for the development of international standards from such a body as soon as it can. > This is in compliance with the October, 1988 directive of X3 that X3J3 > produce a single standard for both domestic and international use. I can't remember the wording, but the clear implication of X3's resolution was that this single standard should be the ISO standard, not that ANSI should produce its own rival standard and claim that this was also for international use. > If the International Standards Organization (ISO) so chooses, FORTRAN 77 > could be retained as a separate ISO standard also. That decision will > be made by ISO at some future time. In other words, ANSI/X3 won't discuss anything with ISO, and indeed will do the exact opposite of what ISO wants, and will then claim that if ISO refuses to be railroaded into changing its mind, then any problems with different standards are ISO's fault! Even that illustrious old member of my college, Charles Dodgson (better known as Lewis Carrol), wouldn't have thought of that one! > This vote is good news for the ENTIRE FORTRAN community. PRESLEY, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! It is an unmitigated disaster. Miles ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Oct 89 11:06:14 bst From: D.T.Muxworthy%edinburgh.ac.uk@RELAY.CS.NET Subject: X3 vote To: x3j3@NCSA.NCSA.UIUC.EDU, sc22wg5%awituw01.bitnet@RELAY.CS.NET Message-Id: <20 Oct 89 11:06:14 bst 030360@EMAS-A> Status: RO SC22 asked WG5 to work with X3J3 to reach a compromise but it now seems that X3 has fixed the US position with no attempt to compromise, or even it would appear, to consider the counter-arguments or the likely consequences. The WG5 task is to revise IS 1539:1980 (=Fortran 77). There has been little sentiment in favour of subsets (9-0-1 by country for a single standard at the last meeting; the abstention was not from the US). There has been no sentiment at all in favour of retaining Fortran 77 as a separate standard. At the recent SC22 meeting the international community essentially endorsed WG5's position and urged it to pursue "timely adoption" of the new standard. Fortran 77 is a small old-fashioned language. At recent forums in the UK users said they could hardly wait to get their hands on Fortran 8X facilities; even when prompted, no-one expressed reservations about usability of old code. Thus I do not expect to see much change in the WG5 technical position. To echo what Kurt says, it IS a disaster for the Fortran community. X3 has voted, whether it realises it or not, to have different Fortran standards in the US and internationally; let us at least try to make sure that the technical content is the same. X3 has also, amazingly, voted to countermand exactly its directive of only a year ago. It has voted for widespread confusion. In the longer term, it has almost certainly voted to ensure that the next international Fortran standard will be produced by an international working group, not a US committee. This will probably apply also to other languages, notably 'C'. I cannot believe this is really what X3 intended. David Muxworthy From @RELAY.CS.NET,@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu,@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:Z3000TT@AWITUW01.BITNET Fri Oct 20 16:02:48 1989 Received: from relay.cs.net by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.1) with SMTP id <AA06574@unmvax.cs.unm.edu>; Fri, 20 Oct 89 16:02:41 -0600 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa16616; 20 Oct 89 6:59 EDT Received: from bardeen.ncsa.uiuc.edu by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA20577; Fri, 20 Oct 89 05:38:35 -0500 Received: from newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu by bardeen.ncsa.uiuc.edu (4.0/NCSA-1.2) id AA11634; Fri, 20 Oct 89 05:38:52 CDT Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Z3000TT@AWITUW01.BITNET> Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU by newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu (4.0/NCSA-1.2) id AA23240; Fri, 20 Oct 89 05:38:36 CDT Received: from awituw01.bitnet by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2) with BSMTP id 6850; Fri, 20 Oct 89 05:38:38 CDT Message-Id: <$244314232S0404D19891020T102330.0001.Mail-VE> To: x3j3@NCSA.NCSA.UIUC.EDU From: Z3000TT%awituw01.bitnet@RELAY.CS.NET Subject: Attn: (X3J3 Members), Date: 20 OCT 89 11:23:30 Status: RO Automatic distribution list SC22WG5 Text is sent for (X3J3 Members), Document number is 79 No comment provided ================== Start of message forwarded ============= Subject: X3 vote From: :$SYSTEM.$NON_MAILVE_SYSTEM Date Sent: 10/20/89 11:09:28 ----------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: <D.T.Muxworthy@EDINBURGH.AC.UK> Received: from awituw01.bitnet by awituw01.bitnet with BSMTP; 20 Oct 89 11:09:22 +0100 Received: from UKACRL (MAILER) by awituw01.bitnet for <SC22WG5@AWITUW01> via BIT with NTF id NTF_FILE_MAIL; 20 Oct 89 11:09:09 +0100 Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 3732; Fri, 20 Oct 89 11:04:01 BST Received: Via: UK.AC.ED.EMAS-A; 20 OCT 89 11:03:56 BST Date: 20 Oct 89 11:06:14 bst From: D.T.Muxworthy@EDINBURGH.AC.UK Subject: X3 vote To: x3j3@NCSA.NCSA.UIUC.EDU, sc22wg5@AWITUW01 Message-ID: <20 Oct 89 11:06:14 bst 030360@EMAS-A> SC22 asked WG5 to work with X3J3 to reach a compromise but it now seems that X3 has fixed the US position with no attempt to compromise, or even it would appear, to consider the counter-arguments or the likely consequences. The WG5 task is to revise IS 1539:1980 (=Fortran 77). There has been little sentiment in favour of subsets (9-0-1 by country for a single standard at the last meeting; the abstention was not from the US). There has been no sentiment at all in favour of retaining Fortran 77 as a separate standard. At the recent SC22 meeting the international community essentially endorsed WG5's position and urged it to pursue "timely adoption" of the new standard. Fortran 77 is a small old-fashioned language. At recent forums in the UK users said they could hardly wait to get their hands on Fortran 8X facilities; even when prompted, no-one expressed reservations about usability of old code. Thus I do not expect to see much change in the WG5 technical position. To echo what Kurt says, it IS a disaster for the Fortran community. X3 has voted, whether it realises it or not, to have different Fortran standards in the US and internationally; let us at least try to make sure that the technical content is the same. X3 has also, amazingly, voted to countermand exactly its directive of only a year ago. It has voted for widespread confusion. In the longer term, it has almost certainly voted to ensure that the next international Fortran standard will be produced by an international working group, not a US committee. This will probably apply also to other languages, notably 'C'. I cannot believe this is really what X3 intended. David Muxworthy -- Walt Brainerd Unicomp, Inc. brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 2002 Quail Run Dr. NE Albuquerque, NM 87122 505/275-0800