From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!multikabel.net!feed20.multikabel.net!sn-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-03!sn-post-ams-02!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!nospam From: nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:38:42 -0700 Organization: NASA Dryden Message-ID: <1hfqfkn.orlbw1424e16N%nospam@see.signature> References: User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.7 (Mac OS X version 10.4.6) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4343 comp.lang.fortran:10081 Date: 2006-05-22T09:38:42-07:00 List-Id: Dan Nagle wrote: > Again, how is this different? Fortran compilers are required > to be able to report use of extensions to the standard. Only syntactic extensions. See 1.4(3) of f2003, which I presume is the requirement you are talking about. Or perhaps you are also including 1.4(6). In any case, the requirements are very specific. Fortran compilers are not required to, and many don't, have the capability to report on *all* extensions, where I emphasize the "all". Let me remphasize it by explicitly stating that "all" includes extensions for things come up only at run-time. I'm not sure that a single Fortran compiler exists that has the capability of reporting the use of *all* extensions. It is my possibly flawed understanding that this is fundamentally different from the situation for Ada. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment. org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain