(j3.2006) UK10 paper

Dan Nagle danlnagle
Tue Oct 1 07:33:46 EDT 2013


Ah.  That was not in the rationale.  It was in the small section
of the specifications.

In any case, the paper (rather badly) violates the one paper, one topic rule.
And we have had objection (I don't know if the objection still stands)
to one of the topics covered (arithmetic IF).  Trying to un-weave the one topic
from the rest will be tedious.

Frankly, I agree that block data should be obsolescent.  I am concerned
with the jumble presented in the flurry of last-minute papers.

On Oct 1, 2013, at 04:36 , David Muxworthy <d.muxworthy at bcs.org.uk> wrote:

> On 1 Oct 2013, Dan Nagle wrote:
>> This is out-of-order anyway, as it goes beyond the delete common requirement,
>> and proposes to delete block data as well.  That needs a straw vote
>> in J3 anyway, and likely in WG5, too.
> No.  N1975 had:
> 2.  Add the following outdated features to B.2 (Obsolescent features):
>    - The EQUIVALENCE statement.
>    - The COMMON statement and BLOCK DATA program unit.
> N1982 had that "UK-10 except subitems 2c and 3" was approved but didn't
> explicitly mention BLOCK DATA because that obviously has no reason to exist
> without common blocks.
> David
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3


Dan Nagle

More information about the J3 mailing list