From owner-sc22wg5 Tue Oct 15 18:24:35 2002 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA92777 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:24:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:21:17 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.164.107]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:22:15 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9FGMG0e018037 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:22:16 -0700 Received: (from maine@localhost) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g9FGMFAM018033; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:22:15 -0700 From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <15788.16567.420142.626750@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:22:15 -0700 To: WG5 Mail List Subject: (SC22WG5.2598) The name of the language In-Reply-To: <200210122214.AAA73002@dkuug.dk> References: <200210122214.AAA73002@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid Walt Brainerd writes: > I would propose "Fortran 03"... > It should be fairly easy to get some feeling of sentiment > for or against something like this by e-mail... I'm against it. Not vehemently - as you say, this isn't substantive, so I'll save my vehemence for issues I consider worth it. But you did ask. My main reason is nothing more complicated than that I've gotten used to the f2k name (and even to that short form in particular) and have used it extensively and publicly. Plus this particular change would be bound to cause confusion among those outside of a the narrow circle of insiders. I predict that there would be those who seriously mistake it for something prior to Fortran IV. I expect this version to be around for long enough that the detail of exactly what year it was released in will be a trivia question about as esoteric as the ones of when f77 and f90 were released. I expect the release after this one to be minor enough that it will be considered a minor tweak, just like f95 is considered a minor tweak on f90, but the distinction between f90 and f2k is likely to be significant, just like the one between f77 and f90. So people will be distinguishing f77 vs f90 vs f2k (or whatever) for a long time, even after the next revision after f2k (or whatever) is out. Two revisions after f2k (or whatever) is farther ahead than I expect to be involved in Fortran. A grep of the LaTeX source for the string 2000 reveals only 6 cases (after I threw out an even smaller number of false positives). Most places just say "this standard". I don't think that could have missed anything, so I can't argue that it is editorially difficult. My "no" vote isn't based on editorial qualms. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain