Subject: hpff-interpret: Fortran 95

From: "Dr A.C. Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:14:16 +0100 (BST)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked] is a mailing list for corrections,
clarifications, and interpretations related to High Performance Fortran.
Instructions for adding or deleting yourself from this list appear at the
bottom of this message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may well have missed something here but does the HPFF intend to `redraft'
the HPF V1.1 spec to define the language binding in terms of Fortran 95 or
is that going to be left to HPF 2? For example, I am thinking of the
argument lists to tghe reduction functions MINVAL, PRODUCT etc. Also there
are some very "sensible" extensions in allowing user defined functions in
specification expressions.

I guess as F95 is a superset of F90 vendors could provide the new F95
features as extensions to HPF V1.1. It would seem a sensible thing to do.

Adam Marshall

-- 
                                       |
     AC Marshall                       |
     Computing Services Department,    |
     University of Liverpool,          |
     PO Box 147.                       |
     L69 3BX                           |
     UK                                |
     email: [email-masked]            |
     Tel:    0151-794 3722             |
     Fax:    0151-794 3759             |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To (un)subscribe to this list, send mail to
[email-masked].
Leave the subject line blank, and in the body put the line
(un)subscribe <email-address>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Koelbel)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:09:23 -0500

>features as extensions to HPF V1.1. It would seem a sensible thing to do.

The short answer is, "We'll leave Fortran 95 up to HPF 2.0."

I agree that F95 has some nice features, taken from HPF and from other
places.  (I can't speak for the whole HPFF working group, but I think this
is a common view.)  Plans are to restructure the HPF 2.0 specification to
be based on F95, but intermediate versions (corrections, clarifications,
interpretations) will continue to be based on F90.  Think of this as
bundling all the big changes into one package.

As with (almost) any language, vendors can add their own extensions.  Their
customers can decide whether they want to pay for worthwhile features that
may be nonportable to other platforms.  F95 extensions to HPF sound very
feasible, and should be more portable than extensions like "brand X active
objects".  (Well, I'm *trying* not to slam any particular company...)

                                                Chuck Koelbel