From rah@SSESCO.com Tue Mar 19 15:20:13 1996 Received: from garbanzo.SSESCO.com (garbanzo.ssesco.com [192.55.187.34]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06153 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:20:08 +0100 From: rah@SSESCO.com Received: from chips.ssesco.com by garbanzo.SSESCO.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03.SSESCO.srv.92.07.22) id AA24976; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:19:38 -0600 Received: by chips.SSESCO.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03.SSESCO.cli.92.10.15) id AA14090; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:19:27 -0600 Message-Id: <9603191419.AA14090@chips.SSESCO.com> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1049) Does anyone have complete diff between F90 and F95 ? To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk (wg5), m-tanaka@lp.nm.fujitsu.co.jp Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:19:27 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1179 > > > > We, Japanese Fortran Standard Committee, will begin to translate Fortran 95 > > to Japanese in April. We are looking for complete diff file between F90 and > > F95 in order to translate efficiently. > > Does anyone have such the diff file ? > While working on F I did part of what Minoru was asking for. I have a copy of the syntax rules and constraints for both Fortran 90 and 95. I've rearranged the F90 one slightly (put things in upper case, reordered some of the constraints, added blanks, etc.). The formats are close enough that the "compare revisions" tool in Microsoft Word shows all of the changes. I'd guess that other word processors would also work. I have doubts about "diff", because it doesn't handle blanks and tabs well. Minoru, if you are interested I could e-mail the files to you. I didn't try to do anything with the actual text of the standards. I was doing this to understand how F relates to F90 (and eventually to F95) Since F is a perfect subset of F90 there would be no difference in the text part (except that lots of things are deleted). Perhaps the rules and constraints will give you a good start. Regards, Dick Hendrickson