From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu May 22 20:12:31 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h4MICVTn033955 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 22 May 2003 20:12:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h4MICMEc033947 for ; Thu, 22 May 2003 20:12:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from longb@cray.com) Received: from relayb.mw.cray.com (relayb.us.cray.com [192.168.252.110]) by mail1.cray.com (8.12.9/8.12.3/gw-1.14) with ESMTP id h4MIDHAv003875; Thu, 22 May 2003 13:13:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from saffron.us.cray.com (saffron.mw.cray.com [172.31.27.14]) by relayb.mw.cray.com (8.12.9/8.12.6/hub-1.2) with ESMTP id h4MIDGx7028396; Thu, 22 May 2003 13:13:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-20-26 [172.31.20.26]) by saffron.us.cray.com (8.8.8/Cray-server-1.6-nhsmod011017) with ESMTP id NAA2512964; Thu, 22 May 2003 13:13:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3ECD14BB.1000601@cray.com> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:19:39 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov CC: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk, sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2733) Name of the language References: <200305221737.h4MHb75C033689@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Van Snyder wrote: > >I haven't seen any postings in newsgroups asking "Whatever happened >to Fortran 88 (or 8x)?" > Is that really a fair comparison? Were people referring to the draft in 1990 as Fortran 88? From what I remember, "Fortran 88" and f90 were actually pretty different. On the other hand, what we're proposing to call Fortran 2003 is the same as what we've been calling Fortran 2000. In fact, I know of a paper entitled "Fortran 2000" that was submitted the this year's CUG proceedings that was written just two weeks ago, and based on the latest draft. I think this is the sort of confusion that concerned Richard. It may not be a sufficient basis for killing 2003, but I think it is more of an issue than suggested above. > >I do worry that if we produce a minor revision in 2008, and people observe >the tradition that the revision number is (usually) the year in which the >technical content is chosen, and not notice that Fortran 2000 is an exception, >they will say "Why did it take so long to do so little?" > I think we'll always get a "Why did it take so long..." comment no matter what we do. > >If we choose to call the present revision Fortran 2000, and produce a >revision in 2008, we should all work very hard to make it a substantial >revision. > There might be justification for considering bigger changes in 2008 anyway. However, I think that is independent of the 2000/2003 debate. And it is a discussion best left until after this standard is done. Cheers, Bill > >Best regards, >Van > > > -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120