Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!walton
From: walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: ALLOCATABLE, ARRAY :: A(:)
Message-ID: <3246@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 16:48:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3246
Posted: Wed Jul 15 16:48:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 07:36:55 EDT
References: <1215@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <105@anumb.UUCP> <3538@watvlsi.UUCP> <3174@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <250@ohlone.UUCP>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton)
Organization: Calfornia Institute of Technology
Lines: 21

In article <250@ohlone.UUCP> nelson@ohlone.UUCP (Bron Nelson) points
out, in response to a posting by me, that Fortran-8x specifically
states that a standard-conforming Fortran-77 program is also standard
conformihng under under Fortran-8x. This torpedoes my idea that A(5)
is a scalar while A(5:10) is an array and thus one can tell at compile
time which is meant.  (This started with wondering how the ability to
ALLOCATE a dummy argument would be implemented.)  He is correct, and I
realized it myself a little while ago.  Expletive deleted.

A rumor which I heard:  The Fortran-8x spec was reported out of
subcommittee some time ago, but the vote in favor of adoption was 15
to 13.  The 15 was the researchers and the 13 were the manufacturers
who complained the language was un-implementable.  The full ANSI
Standards Committee sent the spec back to the subcommittee for further
consideration.  The Europeans, for their part, seem ready to adopt the
current proposed spec, hence the August meeting in the UK to thrash
out an international standard.  Can anyone confirm this?

    Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu
    AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
"Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rules