From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed May 28 20:39:34 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h4SIdYqC078630 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:39:34 +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 mx1.liv.ac.uk (mx1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.179]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h4SIdSEc078614 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:39:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from mailhub5.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.157]) by mx1.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19L5qf-0006GO-OS for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 28 May 2003 19:40:29 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mailhub5.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub5.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19L5qf-00052g-MQ for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 28 May 2003 19:40:29 +0100 Received: from vp135020.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.135.20] helo=jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub5.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19L5qf-00052d-EG for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 28 May 2003 19:40:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:40:31 +0100 From: "J.L.Schonfelder" cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2748) Name of the language Message-ID: <31928851.1054150831@jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200305281756.h4SHuK8U078401@dkuug.dk> References: <200305281756.h4SHuK8U078401@dkuug.dk> Originator-Info: login-id=jls; server=pop1.liv.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-spam: Bad HELO/EHLO X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19L5qf-0006GO-OS*1ZtW.maUG5g* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Talk about the "bicycle shed syndrome". This topic, which is basically trivial, has produced more mail that most of the previous doz. threads put together. It matters not a lot what we call it just so long as we call it something and agree what it is and all use the same name. I would plump for Fortran 2003 (F03 as the filetype extention) but I do not care all that much. --On 28 May 2003 12:55 -0500 Kurt W Hirchert wrote: > 1. I like Fortran 2003 better than Fortran 2000 for all the reasons > previously cited. When people earlier suggested changing the name from > to Fortran 2000 to a more current date, they were told (among other > things) that it was too much work to keep changing the date and that we > should leave it 2000 until we knew what the "right" date was. Now that > we know what the "right" date, they are being told it shouldn't be > changed because we left it 2000 for too long. I dislike this kind of > game playing where there is never an appropriate time to consider an > issue. > > 2. I like Fortran 03 even less than Fortran 2000. If this standard were > delayed a few months, we could end up with confusion between Fortran 04 > and FORTRAN IV. If we get this revision out on time and take 7 years to > do the next revision, that revision could end up Fortran 10, which sounds > a lot like the name of the product I used to use on our DECsystem 10. > 66, 77, 90, and 95 were acceptable because the numbers were large enough > to be recognized as abbreviations for dates, but such 2-digit > abbreviations are much less acceptable for current dates. (Cf., Windows > 95 and Windows 98 vs. Windows 2000) > > 3. As a possible compromise between the Fortran 2003 and Fortran 2000 > camps, I suggest Fortran 2K. People have been using F2K enough as an > abbreviation for Fortran 2000 that I believe that there should be little, > if any, trouble for people to connect the name Fortran 2K with the > previous postings about Fortran 2000, but 2K is not a specific date and > thus avoids at least some of the problems alluded to by the Fortran 2003 > camp. > > -- > Kurt W Hirchert hirchert@atmos.uiuc.edu > UIUC Department of Atmospheric Sciences +1-217-265-0327 -- Lawrie Schonfelder Honorary Senior Fellow University of Liverpool 1 Marine Park, West Kirby, Wirral, UK, CH48 5HN Phone: +44 (151) 625 6986