jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) (03/05/88)
In article <1067@ut-emx.UUCP>, reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder) writes: > I think (but only when absolutely neccessary ;^) that the standards > committee should generally only standardize existing practice. I am > willing to make an exception for those features which (lots of) users > have wanted but no vendor has been willing to implement (are there any > that fit this criterion?). I tend to agree, with a slight exception. There are numerous features that are not yet 'standard practice' but for various reasons are available in many Fortran environments. Things like internal procedures, array syntax, include, dynamic memory, etc.. I think it is well within the charter of the committee to consider these and to standardize them before myriad incompat- ible versions become available. J. Giles Los Alamos
reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder) (03/08/88)
In article <506@a.UUCP>, jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > I tend to agree, with a slight exception. There are numerous features that > are not yet 'standard practice' but for various reasons are available in > many Fortran environments. Things like internal procedures, array syntax, If a feature is "available in many Fortran environments" then I would say it is standard practice -- even if the implementations are different. So I guess we are in agreement about the X3J3 people being allowed to standardize > include, dynamic memory, etc.. Unfortunately, they did much more: Modules, generalized precision, user- defined monadic, diadic, and assignment operators, ... > J. Giles > Los Alamos -- William {Wills,Card,Weekly,Virtual} Reeder reeder@emx.utexas.edu The Looniversity of TexMex at Autism, Consternation Central, Austin TX 78712 DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself, and usually only to myself.