(j3.2006) Optional parts of programming languages

[Aleksandar Donev]

Robert Corbett wrote:

> Of course, the existing Fortran standard has significant optional parts.
> All of Chapter 14 is optional.
Wrong! The functionality of it is optional, because it depends on 
hardware support. But the syntax (which is trivial here because it is 
just a module) must be recongnized by the compiler and processed 
accordingly.

>  Chapter 15 should have been optional.
Wrong again!
> As it stands, an implementor must supply a C compiler or something
> equivalent to a C compiler (see Section 2.5.10) to conform to the
> Fortran standard.
Wrong. Which part of "it may be the Fortran processor itself," is not clear?

In both cases the syntax is standardized and all compilers must 
recognize it, parse it, and verify it. Other than that they need not do 
anything more. BIND(C) can simply be thrown out, for example. It does 
not change the meaning of a Fortran program. It merely adds some 
conditions that the compiler should verify (i.e., is this interface 
really interoperable).

It is exactly the same situation with co-arrays. Compilers must know the 
syntax, parse it, verify it, and then they can simply throw away all 
square brackets and put no ops for syncs. It is as optional as a 
language feature should ever get. We are serving programmers, not 
compilers. Programmers should not have to maintain two versions of their 
code just because some compiler writers or Fortran teachers do not want 
to do a little extra work.

Best,
Aleks