From: "Dan Nagle" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:21 AM
>On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:47 AM, robin wrote:
>> From: "Van Snyder" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, 7 August 2010 5:16 AM
>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 19:14 -0700, Vivek Rao wrote:
>>>> Fortran 2008 has been finalized, right?
>>> Yes, two years ago.
>
>> Isn't the working draft dated August 2009 ?
>The technical content was fixed as of November, 2008.
>Minor editorial corrections are ongoing prior to ISO publication,
>expected Q4 2010.
That makes it F2010, because until the standard is
officially and formally published, it isn't a standard.
>>> That's why it's called "Fortran 2008" instead of
>>> "Fortran 2010."
>>>> The committee should restrict itself to maintenance mode until full
>>>> F2008 compilers are available.
>>> Why? With the exception of coarrays, Fortran 2008 was essentially a
>>> maintenance project.
>
>> That may be so, but compiler manufacturers have not caught up with
>> F2003.
>The major players (and it's difficult to mention names because
>not-yet-released products cannot be discussed) either have complete f03,
>or have, in response to customer demand, made a decision to add coarrays
>and, perhaps, submodules, ahead of PDT and DIO.
Major players dropped out after implementing F95.
>The miscalculation was the magnitude of the effort to implement
>all of f03. I think most players underestimated it.
Unlikely. That's why they dropped out with F95.
> That fact
>cannot be repaired by diddling with f08 or future revisions.
|