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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 02:02:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:02:55 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology
Message-ID: <slrn9sdjoi.b2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <mailman.1002721517.7620.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <9q25ec0248o@drn.newsguy.com>
 <slrn9sanqm.cb.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9q421v0bbg@drn.newsguy.com> <slrn9sb4q1.hv.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <9q4a37$npd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4e59018lm@drn.newsguy.com>
 <slrn9sc9g2.578.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9q5j2u$8i41@news.cis.okstate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1002877375 4894 129.241.83.82 (12 Oct 2001
 09:02:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:02:55 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14370
Date: 2001-10-12T09:02:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12 Oct 2001 02:04:14 GMT, David Starner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:01:36 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:
>> I have to use Fortran 77 from time to time, and even as painful as its
>> syntax is I do not want a Fortran 78 that has only changed some syntax
>> aspects and thus break compability with all the available Fortran 77
>> source the project has.
> 
> You do know that Fortran 90 has two syntaxs; the old Fortran 77-style
> fixed form, and a new free form without the column restrictions and
> stuff? No evolutionary step there; a whole new format, with a binary
> choice between the two.

Huh? There is a bigger difference than that. I have to use a F90
compilor as I have no F77 compilor, but I still have to code in F77 not
F90. 

   http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/dbpp/text/node84.html

Preben