Re: Benefits of continuing Fortran standardisation survey: interim results

[Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>]

Dear Jorge,

....snip....
>> However, it is clear that the versions being used in the
>> field are lagging far behind trunk.
>
> Perhaps encourage the users the convenience or need to update
> the compiler version with a short phrase in the commands like
> "gfortran --version", etc., as well as in the manual or on the
> wiki page?

The problem, reading between the lines is that many users are in the
hands of system administrators, who do not greatly like straying
outside the confines of the distro.
....snip....
>
> Although the array descriptor ABIs are not compatible, some
> compatibility in the * .mod files would be very welcome, at
> least partially, and thus avoid introducing a lot of extra work.

Unfortunately, I think that it would now take more work to make .mod
files compatible than the ABI.

>
>> "Fortran is a dead language and its use should be banned by
>> an act of Parliament."
>> (Well, I suppose that it would make a change from brexit.)
>
> The anonymous opinion is somewhat unfriendly because it is
> innecesary and it is a statement not technically justified.

Which one - about fortran or brexit? :-)

....snip....
> In the case of the Gfortran manual, the "standard" label in each
> intrinsic is very useful to quickly verify in what Fortran
> standard (95, 2003, 2008, etc.) is available.

You are correct. However, the commentator is correctly pointing out
that the different brands have different bugs for the F20xx features.

....snip....

>> "gfortran - yes (although it would be nice if coarrays were better
>> integrated, i.e. not having to use the opencoarray library
>> explicitly)."
>> (Music for your ears, Nicolas and Thomas!)
>
> I would also like a better integration of coarrays in case of
> processing either with shared or distributed memory. Then, a
> little more music for Nicolas and Thomas...

Estoy de acuerdo!

Paul