On 11/27/13 3:13 PM, Van Snyder wrote:
>
> Requiring (as opposed to allowing) lazy evaluation, even only in the
> case of a scalar MASK, appears to be anathema to Fortran committee
> members.
Some of whom are not that keen on rules that effectively require slow
implementations that would result in user avoidance. Proposing a slow
alternative to MERGE is one possibility, but degrading MERGE for
everyone is undesirable.
>
> Edsgar Dijkstra to write "Fortran, 'the infantile disorder,' by now
> nearly 20 years old, is hopelessly inadequate for whatever computer
> application you have in mind today; it is too clumsy, too risky, and too
> expensive to use."
A quote that is decades old and certainly not relevant.
>
> Part of the problem is that the US ANSI committee, to which the ISO
> committee has delegated development responsibility, has dwindled to
> seven members, of whom only two represent Fortran users. I don't know
Really? 8 the last time I looked. Three from labs, 5 from vendors. And
vendors can be users.
>
> Similarly, the ISO committee has dwindled to five delegations (US, UK,
> Germany, Netherlands, Japan).
6 counting Canada, which I think is now separate from the UK.
Cheers,
Bill
--
Bill Long [log in to unmask]
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101
|