Re: problem to compile a single program...
From: Gary L. Scott (garyscott_at_ev1.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:43:54 -0600
Ryo Furue wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Gary Scott) wrote in message news:<email@example.com>...
> > Dan Nagle <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:<email@example.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")?
-- Gary Scott mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Fortran Library http://www.fortranlib.com Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project: http://g95.sourceforge.net