naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu (Harold Naparst) (02/15/89)
I have been out of it for about 9 months, so please excuse this topic,
which has almost certainly been discussed before.
During the public review period for Fortran 8x last spring, I sent in
a critique of a lot of the new features in Fortran 8x. I never got a
response. Can anyone tell me what is going on with this new language?
Harold Naparst
Harold Naparst (415)-548-4652
UUCP {tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!garnet!naparst
New style naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu
ARPA | CSNET naparst%garnet@berkeley.edukhb@fatcity.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman Sun Tactical Engineering) (02/15/89)
In article <20377@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu (Harold Naparst) writes: >I have been out of it for about 9 months, so please excuse this topic, >which has almost certainly been discussed before. > >During the public review period for Fortran 8x last spring, I sent in >a critique of a lot of the new features in Fortran 8x. I never got a >response. Can anyone tell me what is going on with this new language? > WG5 (part of the intern'l effort) hath ordained F88, with some editoral work to be done, along with a strong directive to get agreement with the US document. They are willing to compromise, so are we. As I write, the X3J3 (ANSI committee) is working hard to come up with the text by Friday, then there will be two draft documents, ANSI and ISO. There will be another round of public review, and then (*hopefully*) _an_ ordained standard which both bodies can live with. Every public comment is gone over, in painful detail. Very few of the points are any different than discussions the committee had years ago... nonetheless the standard is mutating to conform with the comments (WG5 and public) in several important areas. It takes a few weeks after a meeting for the Sect'y and others to collate all that transpired. The meeting is ongoing at the Holiday Inn in Palo Alto (El Camino and Embarcadero). The public is welcome. cheers. Keith H. Bierman It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus
naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu (Harold Naparst) (02/16/89)
In article <89802@sun.uucp> khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman Sun Tactical Engineering) writes: >As I write, the X3J3 (ANSI committee) is working hard to come up with >the text by Friday, then there will be two draft documents, ANSI and >ISO. There will be another round of public review, and then >(*hopefully*) _an_ ordained standard which both bodies can live with. But this still doesn't answer my question. Have there been any major changes to the first proposal, and if so, what ? >Every public comment is gone over, in painful detail. Very few of the >points are any different than discussions the committee had years >ago... nonetheless the standard is mutating to conform with the >comments (WG5 and public) in several important areas. Why didn't I get a response to my comment ? Harold Naparst Harold Naparst (415)-548-4652 UUCP {tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!garnet!naparst New style naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu ARPA | CSNET naparst%garnet@berkeley.edu
khb%chiba@Sun.COM (chiba) (02/17/89)
In article <20420@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu (Harold Naparst) writes: >..... >But this still doesn't answer my question. Have there been any major changes >to the first proposal, and if so, what ? > Major changes have been made, but the meeting is still in progress. How do you expect anyone to tell you what the final outcome is ? Pointers are in. KIND= for logical is in. && more Meetings begin at 8am, go until perhaps 5. Subcommittes meet all night. >>Every public comment is gone over,... > >Why didn't I get a response to my comment ? > Because no answer can sensibly be made until the work is done. If, for example, you had commented on how much you liked the way memory allocation was done (or how much you hated it and wanted a pointer) it was impossible to craft you an answer...since this meeting spent a huge amount of time discussing and voting the issues. Formal letters to commentors must be voted on by the committee, so they too will take up agenda time. Synopsis of the meeting will almost certainly be posted. Probably by one of the more talented writers. I was not in continual attendence, so I am unfit to prepare one. khb Keith H. Bierman It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus
jerry@violet.berkeley.edu ( Jerry Berkman ) (02/19/89)
In article <20377@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> naparst@garnet.berkeley.edu (Harold Naparst) writes: > >During the public review period for Fortran 8x last spring, I sent in >a critique of a lot of the new features in Fortran 8x. I never got a >response. Can anyone tell me what is going on with this new language? > >Harold Naparst The language has changed a lot since the public review. I attended the X3J3 meeting last week in Palo Alto last week as a visitor. Here is my impression of the status of Fortran 8X. I am not a member of X3J3, this list is unofficial. It is also incomplete; there have been too many changes to have a complete summary on the net. For that, you must read the document in the next review cycle. In past meetings, the actions have included: - removed the concept of deprecation - removed the new form of DATA statement - removed generalized precision - added KIND= attribute to specify processor dependent alternate forms of intrinsic types (except LOGICAL) - added binary, octal, hex. constants in data statements and corresponding data edit descriptors in formats - added INCLUDE In the Palo Alto meeting last week, the following actions were taken: - added a pointer attribute - added "nonadvancing I/O" which can be used to write without CR/LF or to read long records in pieces and removed "PROMPT=" - allowed KIND= with LOGICAL type - added FLOOR, CEILING, MODULO intrinsics. MODULO differs from MOD in treatment of negatives - allow characters, structures, and other intrinsic types to all be part of the same common block as long as long as certain rules are followed The committee spent this meeting trying to resolve remaining technical issues and to get a draft standard which would also be acceptable to ISO, the Internaional Standards Organization, so that both ISO and ANSI will have the same standard for Fortran. X3J3 passed a resolution that no new technical proposals may be raised after this meeting and that no technical issues will be revisited. The next meeting, May 8-12, Port Jefferson, Long Island, New York, will be concerned with polishing the draft, i.e. making minor editorial changes and fixing bugs and inconsistencies in the draft, and responding to the public comments received last year. It is likely that the draft will be forwarded on to X3, the parent body of X3J3, after the May X3J3 meeting. If not, then ISO may adopt it's own standard. Since there have been substantive changes to the draft, X3 will hold a second public review period. X3J3 voted in favor of another 4 month public review period; however X3 rules call for only a 2 month public review period. The previous public comment resulted about 450 letters which included about 5700 individual comments. The committee intends to answer each letter, comment by comment, and is in the process of drafting answers. But first the draft has to be stabilized. I.e., it would have been impossible to answer a comment for or against pointers until last week. Similarly, about 10 comments thought PROMPT= was not general enough; now the committee has addressed that problem. - Jerry Berkman U.C. Berkeley, Central Computing Services jerry@violet.berkeley.edu