> Hello,
>
> You may submit a public comment on the committee draft
> of the proposed Fortran 2008 standard by sending an email
> to f2008-ballot-comments-ext@sun.com
>
> If you are outside the USA, you may prefer to comment
> through your national body. You are welcome
> to comment to J3.
>
> The draft may be downloaded from J3's web site
> at www.j3-fortran.org as 08-007r2.pdf
> or from WG5's web site at n1723.pdf
> or from INCITS's web site at pl22.3.incits.org
> as SC22 N4319.
>
> Public comments may be submitted from 2008 June 6
> until 2008 July 6. J3 will act on comments
> at its August 2008 meeting. ...

> Would it be better to send several e-mails (one for each topic
> being commented upon) or a single e-mail containing all one's
> comments? Perhaps I should first ask if multiple e-mails from
> the same person are even permitted.

> You may submit a public comment on the committee draft
> of the proposed Fortran 2008 standard by sending an email
> to f2008-ballot-comments-ext@sun.com

>
> 1. The f2003 standard is a failure. In that case the committee should be
> studying and addressing the reasons for the failure instead of just
> pressing on.

> 2. It is just too early to expect full implementations of something as
> large as f2003. In that case, it is also too early to be proposing a
> follow-on standard.

> Hello,
>
> On 2008-07-02 18:35:33 -0400, nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) said:

>>
>> 1. The f2003 standard is a failure. In that case the committee should be
>> studying and addressing the reasons for the failure instead of just
>> pressing on.

>
> It's not a failure, it's simply true that too few resources
> are being spent to implement f03 compilers.

> On a tangent, there is a way that F03 implementation could have been
> sped up. In the C++ world there is a company that sells a parser,
> which is implemented with a good interface for attaching it to
> compilers. If such a gizmo existed in the Fortran world, I'm sure that
> many vendors would happily pay to use it, and it would reduce the cost
> of F03 significantly.
>
> Now if gfortran had been farther along already, that probably would
> have sped things up a bit, through embarrassment. But it wouldn't
> reduce the implementation cost, except perhaps from some testcase
> writing.

>Parsing Fortran is trivial. Lexing Fortran is more
>complicated, but it is a well understood problem.
>Reducing the time required to write parsers and lexers
>for Fortran 2003 to zero would not make much of a dent
>in the total effort needed to create a Fortran 2003
>compiler.

> Someone else must be throwing those misconceptions in. *I* sure didn't
> and wouldn't say anything even vaguely like that. I said that there are
> not as yet any f2003 compilers. That one might possibly be wrong, as
> last I heard, the IBM compiler sounded close (but its one I'm not likely
> to have access to in the forseeable future); that's why I qualified my
> statement on that.