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