Hello,
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'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.
The miscalculation was the magnitude of the effort to implement
all of f03. I think most players underestimated it. That fact
cannot be repaired by diddling with f08 or future revisions.
FWIW, I think the next revision should be a CCR revision.
That is, editorial repairs, wording improvements, and a home for interpretations
and the outstanding TRs. That's enough for the present, IMHO.
Others disagree. YMMV
The process, imperfect as it is, is one of repeated consensus.
Requiring a delay until all, or even most, vendors have f03 implemented completely,
regardless of what customers are requesting, effectively gives veto power
to the slowest vendor(s). The consensus was hard to achieve as is.
The purpose of process is that the minority can be heard, and the majority
can prevail.
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
|