From: +ACI-Malcolm Cohen+ACI- +ADw-malcolm+AEA-NAG-J.CO.JP+AD4-
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:40 PM
+AD4-I wrote:
+AD4APg- For a start, compiler options are outwith the scope of the standard.
+AD4-Robin Vowels resorts to insults:
+AD4APg- You may not have noticed,
That's an insult?
+AD4- That I am a Fortran user +ACo-and+ACo- a Fortran compiler writer (with options) +ACo-and+ACo- one of many Fortran
+AD4- standard authors? It seems unlikely.
+AD4- And then misses the point completely:
+AD4APg- but many compilers offer options that deal with old programs, old extensions, etc.
No, I did not miss the point.
+AD4- Then ask the compiler writers for an option.
+AD4- There's little point in talking to the Fortran language committee about compiler options,
+AD4- because compiler options are not part of the language.
The Fortran Language Committee considers changes to the language.
It is therefore important to bring the problem and proposed change of CMPLX to their attention,
ALONG WITH with the accompanying proposal to handle it with a compiler option,
and therefore it is essential to being compiler options to the committee.
In spite of your uninformed dismissal of the compiler option.
+AD4- On the Fortran language committees, the topic of CMPLX has been discussed
+AD4- by a great number of people at great length, even back in Fortran 90 days.
+AD4- Few of them agreed with your contention that it is quite ok to break old programs.
It isn't breaking old programs, since there is a way of compiling them,
as you well know.
+AFs-BTW, there is at least one Fortran compiler that has an option to
accept +ACI-one-trip DO statements+ACI-, back from FORTRAN 66 days+AF0-
+AD4- (If they had agreed, we would not have the CMPLX intrinsic that we have now.)
And had it been inmplemetned then, we would not have not had the mess
that now esists.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|