Richard,
At 07:50 02-10-02 -0700, you wrote:
>Jan van Oosterwijk writes:
> > Does this mean that the decision has been taken to informally name the
> > new standard "Fortran 2000" ?
>
>Yes. That decision was made long ago and has never been changed. I
>have seen discussions of other possibilities here and on
>comp.lang.fortran, but the draft calls itself Fortran 2000 and I don't
>recall any proposals to change that even being actually proposed in
>committee, much less passed.
Me too, I prefer to leave it like this. I just didn't know that it was
already decided.
Anyway, Fortran 95 was published in 1997, so the "delay" between
name and date is still reasonable.
>Of course, like anything else, it is subject to possible change
>until the standard is actually approved, but that is what is in the
>draft right now (and has been for many revisions).
>
>My completely personal opinion is that I'd like to leave it that way
>for two reasons, both quite mundane.
>
>1. I don't particularly care to go through the document and make sure
> that all the places that would need to be changed are changed.
> Not that I think this would be really hard - I doubt it is a large
> number of places. But it is certainly harder than leaving it
> alone.
>
>2. I've gotten used to calling it that.
>
>One is free, of course, to suggest a change as part of a public
>comment. If that's among the dozen or two most important things one
>can find to criticize, then I'll be surprised. I've got a lot more
>criticisms than that myself.
One thing I would have liked is the disappearance of the restriction
of boz constants to DATA statements and INTEGERs ,
though the use of for example, REAL(Z'abcd') is a work around.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
___ ___
/ \/ / /
__/ /__/
Jan van Oosterwijk
2264 TB Leidschendam
mailto: Jan.vanOosterwijk @ DTO.TUDelft.nl
|