From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Dec 14 11:13:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 309883569EE; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:13:30 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C331B3568FF for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:13:25 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:49799) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1TjQPv-0005ej-sj (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:14:48 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1TjQPv-0003ul-US (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:14:47 +0000 Received: from [87.115.38.21] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 14 Dec 2012 08:14:47 +0000 Date: 14 Dec 2012 08:14:47 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Dan Nagle Cc: WG5 List Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4859) (j3.2006) WG5 letter ballot on N1947 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20121214040255.291163569E2@www.open-std.org> References: <20121210121650.AB1553569E8@www.open-std.org> <20121213174556.1917D3569D5@www.open-std.org> <20121214040255.291163569E2@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 14 2012, Dan Nagle wrote: > > The major reason for declining the argument for more history > is that none of the other languages mention any revision other than > the most recent. Since publicity is a major benefit of this exercise, > I believe conformity with "more modern" languages outweighed > any explanatory gain. I think that is a mistake, and that it would be better to have been more definite that the first approach is to use the techniques available in modern Fortran where they are better replacements for older ones. Only yesterday, I was teaching C++ (a 'modern' language) and was asked about why the argument passing is the way that it is. "It started with Algol 60 ...." Followed by CPL, BCPL, B, C and thence to C++. Regards, Nick Maclaren.