[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FORMAT-E-EXPONENT-SIGN (Version 2)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: FORMAT-E-EXPONENT-SIGN (Version 2)
- From: Robert A. Cassels <Cassels@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 18:40 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, GLS@Think.COM
- In-reply-to: <881002162430.7.KMP@GRYPHON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 88 16:24 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I don't care about PRIN1 and ~E being compatible, particularly, but it's
my vague recollection that some of the way ~E, ~G, and ~F are set up is
to be compatible with some Fortran programs to make translation easy.
The proposal in these terms is that PRIN1 and ~E be (slightly)
incompatible, so that ~E can be internally consistent.
don't recall the details, but I even recall we talked half-seriously about
putting in Cobol picture-mode as well. I think that if this was a goal,
that we should make sure we don't accidentally violate that goal.
As long as the proposed change is not going to cause problems for people
doing translation of Fortran programs, I'm happy with the change.
Since ~E is being made self-consistent, the proposal should make it
easier for people doing translation of Fortran programs. Note that the
CL formats do not correspond character for character with Fortran, but
give the same general capability.
I don't remember the details of this issue nor do I have a fortran
specification handy but maybe GLS or someone else reading this message
remembers the issue. Based on what other people remember about the
issue, it may be useful to mention that it was considered in the