Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Was: Re: length of a character string
Message-ID: <1897@convex.UUCP>
Date: 28 Sep 89 14:58:29 GMT
References: <2490@ualtamts.BITNET> <125348@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <2494@ualtamts.BITNET> <125409@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@mozart.UUCP (Presley Smith)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 66

In article <125409@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) writes:
    -- Text Deleted --
>
>Many members of X3J3 were extremely displeased that X3 (the parent
>committee) refused permission to have the standard widely distributed.
>It appears that Fortran documents are such popular documents that they
>are treated as a fund raising event ... as Walt posted a couple of
>weeks back, Tom Lahey's company is distributing copies (clean readable
>ones) for cost.

Presley is as just as displeased at the lack of permission to 
widely distribute the document as the other members of X3J3 are.

>
>>from  individuals  WHO  DID  NOT  PURCHASE THEIR OWN OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED
>>COPIES (as has been suggested might be the case) would be a  travesty.  It
>>would  be  better  to reject those comments that are based on an obviously
>>incorrect copy.
>
>Presley Smith was offering his own "legalistic" opinon. Presley is a
>very smart guy, and is probably legally correct (so if you plan to
>sue ANSI retain him :>) but I seriously doubt that X3J3 will reject
>opinons based on where you got your copy.

Once again... 

 1. You do NOT have to purchase a copy of the document to comment on 
    Fortran 8x.  It would help if you are informed about Fortran 8x
    prior to commenting.  You should get information on both the 
    positive and negative aspects of the proposed standard and make
    an informed decision on what you feel about the document.

    There's a lot of emotion on this issue.  There's a lot of selling 
    going on both on the positive and the negative side.   

    IF YOU SEE A PRESENTATION ON FORTRAN 8X THAT IS EITHER ALL POSITIVE,
    THE WORLD IS GREAT, OR ALL NEGATIVE, THE SKY IS FALLING, YOU SHOULD 
    BEWARE.  It's NOT all positive and it's NOT all negative.  You should
    require a balanced view from information that you receive.

 2. Tom Lahey has every right to distribute the document.  But Tom is 
    not the official distribution channel.  From the ANSI point of 
    view, it's possible that an update to the document might be made
    during the public review period.  If this was the case, then the 
    official distribution channel would inform you of such an update
    and you could obtain it.   ANSI is not required to work with Tom
    to be sure you get the same information.  

    If something is wrong with the document that Tom is distributing,
    (I don't believe there is...but IF...) and you comment on the thing
    that is wrong and the document from the official sanctioned place 
    is right... then if you make an appeal to ANSI based on information
    that is wrong from a non-sanctioned document,  ANSI does not have 
    to listen to that appeal... you based your appeal on information 
    that was in a document that was NOT sanctioned. 

Complicated enough?   To my knowledge, Tom`s distribution is 
exactly the same document that Global is distributing.  It is 
certainly Tom's intention to make it such.

The ANSWER IS... GET A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT and/or GET A BALANCED 
PRESENTATION ON THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE DOCUMENT
and WRITE.  

    DON`T WORRY about the possible legalise of the scanctioned or 
    non-sanctioned documents...