Re: problem to compile a single program...

From: Gary L. Scott (garyscott_at_ev1.net)
Date: 12/12/03


Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:43:54 -0600

Ryo Furue wrote:
>
> gary.l.scott@lmco.com (Gary Scott) wrote in message news:<6dad5570.0312100956.1564ef67@posting.google.com>...
> > Dan Nagle <dnagle@erols.com> wrote in message news:<k3uctv86uqk90uib4672pcchcn3seohet7@4ax.com>...
> > > Since the Official, Informal name of the new standard
> > > is "Fortran 2003", I hope vendors will use a ".f03" suffix.
> > >
> > > At least one has informally asked what suffix to use.
> >
> > Since no current OS requires extension to be 3 characters and likely
> > never will again, I recommend ".f2k3". ".f03" as compared to ".f77"
> > or ."f90" looks too much like an older standard rather than a newer
> > one.
>
> This reminds me of a joke we were enjoying some time back.
>
> In 1999, a rumor had it that a new Fortran standard would come out
> in 2000 and it would perhaps be called "Fortran 2000." We were
> expectant, but it didn't come out in 2000. In 2001, we said that
> although Fortran missed the great chance to call it self "Fortran
> 2000", it would still be able to call itself "Fortran ME (Millenium
> Edition)" if it would make it within 2001. But it didn't make it.
> In 2002, we said that Fortran missed the chance again but it
> could now call itself "Fortran XP".
>
> Now that Windows 2003 came out, Fortran has a great chance again
> :-)
>

It's silly to use the year anyway if you attach some symbolic meaning to
the year it is standardized (desiring one year over another), given the
known complexities of the standardization process.

How about Fortran++ (F++ ".f++")? Fortran 46.0 (age in years ".f46")?
Fortran V (the fifth standard ".fv")?

> Ryo

-- 
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library
http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project:  http://g95.sourceforge.net


Relevant Pages

  • Re: A few syntax questions
    ... I think putting them in the 'action-stmt' syntax rule ... If I were to redo the bnf from scratch, ... I guess that means that a standard conforming compiler is supposed to overflow. ... I am hoping that F2003 features will regain some respect for Fortran in CS departments,, and not just be coinsidered an old archaic language for old programs, but such strong support of archaic Fortran standards is a major reason why Fortran popularity continues to dwindle. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Form k = i + j and test for overflow.
    ... Last night you suggested I was forgetting that overflow violates ... the Fortran standard. ... test that wouldn't work on the most common of implementations. ... that conforms to the Fortran standard. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: conditional compile for gFortran (GCC?): newbie question
    ... The official standard for a Fortran pre-processor is Part 3, "Conditional Compilation", informally known as CoCo. ... As I mentioned in a message in this thread yesterday, there are free implementations of CoCo available on the Internet. ... Obviously, CPP and its derivatives are widely used for Fortran, but I am not sure that the usage is so universal that it counts as a "de-facto standard", except perhaps in the Unix world. ... the capabilities and behavior of the Fortran pre-processor would be under the control of either the C or C++ committee. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: FOR070.DAT files appearing
    ... IMPLICIT NONE has been Standard Fortran since 1993 when the Fortran 90 ... When F90 was approved, it became the ... I'd also challenge you to find a commercial Fortran 77 compiler ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Is this legal and if not why not?
    ... > It seems to work but is it standard Fortran and if not why not? ... > end type TBase ... What OO function cannot be achieved with Fortran 90? ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)