home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: pma@rutherford.ac.uk (Peter Allan)
-
- I was rather surprised and disappointed to hear of the probable demise
- of the work on a Fortran 90 binding for POSIX. I have seen a draft of the
- proposed Fortran 77 binding and I do not particularly like it. I do not wish
- to be critical of the work of that committee as it seems to me that this
- is a classic example of "if you want to get there, you should not start
- from here" (i.e. Fortran 77). The spirit of Fortran 77 has to be bent to
- get a POSIX interface and I had great hopes that a Fortran 90 one would be
- a great deal better.
-
- The project that I work for is just beginning to get to grips with
- Fortran 90 and it would certainly make the language more attractive if
- there was a POSIX binding.
-
- Perhaps this is just a question of timing after all. While it may not yet
- seem timely to propose the correct POSIX binding to Fortran 90, it seems
- clear to me that it is easy to come up with a binding that is superior to
- any possible Fortran 77 binding. It would be most unfortunate if work on
- a Fortran 90 binding were delayed to the extent that it affected the take
- up of Fortran 90 as a language.
-
- On the technical side, I would not assume that it will be possible to provide
- a satisfactory Fortran to C interface on all platforms. An example (of dubious
- relevance) is that if you call functions written in Microsoft C from routines
- written in Microsoft Fortran, you cannot get hold of the length of a passed
- length character argument.
-
- Peter Allan
- STARLINK project
- Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 31, Number 51
-
-