(j3.2006) BEQ, BNE?

[Whitlock, Stan]

That remark is just not productive.  What is your goal here?  To find changes to the standard that you can put your name on?  It is never a good idea to delete something from the standard.  If it's been implemented, then guaranteed, someone is using it and the vendor can't delete it.

And arguing about decades old hardware might be fun over a beer but it serves no useful purpose for the standard.  If someone resurrects this old hardware support and it is commercially successful, you can add BEQ and BNE to Fortran 2050.  Right now, it just generates annoying e-mail.

/Stan

-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Van Snyder
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:24 PM
To: longb at cray.com
Cc: fortran standards email list for J3
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) BEQ, BNE?

On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 07:33 -0600, Bill Long wrote:
> If I recall, the goal was to add the actually useful cases while 
> trying to limit the ever-expanding list of intrinsics.

Perhaps we should delete BGT and BGE, since BGT == .NOT. BLE, and BGE == .NOT. BLT


_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3