From waveren@xs4all.nl Wed Sep 13 11:24:50 1995 Received: from xs1.xs4all.nl (root@xs1.xs4all.nl [193.78.33.42]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21244 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:24:46 +0200 Received: from asd03-26.dial.xs4all.nl (asd06-12.dial.xs4all.nl) by xs1.xs4all.nl with SMTP id AA28329 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:33:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:33:12 +0200 Message-Id: <199509130833.AA28329@xs1.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: waveren@xs4all.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk From: waveren@xs4all.nl (Matthijs van Waveren) Subject: POSIX Fortran Binding Cc: mellis@vax.ox.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) X-Mailer: Hello, As member of the Dutch Programming Languages Committee, I recently received a SC22 document where the POSIX Fortran Binding was mentioned. If I understand correctly, the situation around this binding is the following: * Currently a Fortran 77 to POSIX binding is available. * The POSIX committee does not have the manpower to upgrade this binding to Fortran 90. * Therefore it is possible that this project might be canceled at the upcoming SC22 plenary meeting in Annapolis, Maryland next week. The document from which I received my information is ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 N 1886, dated July 14, 1995. Our convener should also have a copy of this document. In fact, he is going to the Maryland meeting next week, as I gathered from the agenda. My question is the following: Should WG5 take action to retain this project, as it might be in the advantage of Fortran 90 that a binding POSIX-Fortran 90 exists ? If WG5 wishes to take action in this matter, I can let the chairman of the Dutch delegation to the SC22 plenary meeting know this, which could mean an extra vote. I would appreciate a reaction by next friday, as the SC22 meeting starts on next monday. All the best, Dr. G. Matthijs van Waveren Parallelisation Consultant Email: waveren@xs4all.nl WWW: http://www.xs4all.nl/~waveren/