Present:        Jackie Bettess    -  UC Swansea

                Joyce Graves      -  University of Nottingham

                David Muxworthy   -  University of Edinburgh

                K Normington      -  Coventry Polytechnic

                Mike Nunn         -  CCTA

                T L van Raalte    -  MOD

                John Reid         -  Harwell

                Steve Watkins     -  UMIST

                John Wilson       -  University of Leicester

Addresses:        Chairman        John Wilson

                                  Computer Laboratory

                                  University of Leicester


                                  LE1 7RH


                Secretary         Mike Nunn


                                  Riverwalk House

                                  157 Millbank


                                  SW1P 4RT

                Treasurer         Keith Normington

                                  Computer Centre

                                  Coventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic

                                  COVENTRY CV1 5PB

1.      MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING [16 April 1984]

Amendments should be made as follows:

        Section 5(ii) first line

        "David Muxworthy produced a summary report on the ISO Geneva meeting for the


        Section 6 page 3

        " .... George Paul (IBM, X3J3 consultant)".

        Section 6(v) page 5

        "There was general support for BIT data type".


The draft BSI Standard document "Method of Specifying Requirements for FORTRAN

Language Processors" is presently being polished up by the BSI Editorial Department

and is expected to be released for public comment in mid-sumer. If all goes well

it could become a British standard in early 1985.


A copy of the Treasurer's accounts for the financial year ended 30 April 1984

is in appendix A. £550 was originally allocated to the Group by BCS to meet HQ

expenses but the cost of these services eventually came to £439.50. Main HQ

expense is sending out our newsletter. The Treasurer has written to ask them for

an analysis of their charges.


        i. Officers were re-elected unanimously as follows:

              Chairman - John Wilson

              Secretary - Mike Nunn

              Treasurer - T L van Raalte.(Due to personal circumstances Mr van Raalte has

                          resigned as Treasurer since the AGM. Keith Normington has

                          agreed to take over these duties).

        Addresses of the above persons appear on the first page of these minutes.

        ii. The Chairman felt there should be a vice-chairman in case he could not

        attend a meeting at the last minute. This was agreed and Keith Normington

        (Coventry Polytechnic) was elected vice-chairman.


        i. A report produced by the Chairman for BCS on Group activities over the

        last year is in appendix B.

        ii. The chairman proposed an increase in the Group's membership fee to £5 for

        non-BCS members for the year ending April 1985. This was voted in favour

        unanimously. The charge mainly covers the newsletter expense.

        iii. Specialist Groups Board

             - a new group called "Privacy and Security" has been formed

             - "Distributed Database Working Group" is to become a group

             - an "Electronic Publishing" group has just started up

             - there is an attempt to resurrect the "CAD" group.

        The Specialist Groups calendar contains highlights of activities.

        iv. The Chairman has been in correspondence with Dr Barber (Vice-President,

        Specialist Groups) on administrative support to our Group from headquarters.

        v. There is a strong probability of another FORTRAN Forum being held in

        London in July next year. A similar event took place in October 1981.

        vi. Future meetings - on 10 December at BCS HQ, David Bailey (Salford

        University) will talk on "Expert Systems from the FORTRAN point of view".

6.      X3J3 PROGRESS

John Reid (Harwell) continues to attend X3J3 meetings and has kindly provided the

report in appendix C of the May meeting in Boston.


        i. Recently our members were sent renewal notices which needed to be

        completed and returned in order to remain in our Group. The returns have been

        analysed by the Secretary to produce the up to date membership list in

        Appendix D.

        ii. The Secretary has recently produced a CCTA Technical Note on the NCC/

        FSTC FORTRAN 77 compiler validation scheme. The latest available certified

        Compiler List, maintained jointly by FSTC and NCC, is in Appendix E.


The next meeting of the Group will be held OH Monday 19 September 1984

from 10.45 to 16.00 at BCS Headquarters. In the afternoon Geoff Millard of

Edinburgh Regional Computer Centre will give a talk on "The ICL FORTRAN 77 Optimising



In the afternoon John Wilson gave a talk on the April meeting 0f the ISO FORTRAN

Working Group at CERN, Geneva. A summary of this appears in Appendix F.



25 JULY 1984



FORTRAN Branch/Specialist Groups

Receipts & Payments Account for the year ended 30th April, 1984

(Please submit to HQ by 3lst May)

Budget                                                                 Actual

£                                                                        £p

      Balance at start: Bank:  Account 'A'                             1421.47

                               Account 'B'


      Add Receipts:     Cash received from HQ against Budget            350.00

                        Cost of HQ services: as notified

                        Cash received £rom HQ £or projects

                        Bank deposit interest received

                        Net income from Special Events:                  82.00

                          Social Evenings, Conferences, etc

                          (See_separate statements attached) [1]

                        Net income from Branch Sub-Groups:

                          (See_separate statements attached)

                        Other income received (please specify)

      Total: Balance + Receipts                                        1853.47

      Less Payments:    Meeting expenditure

                        Mailing expenditure

                        Secretarial expenditure

                        Committee expenditure

                        Professional services

                        Cost of HQ services received:                   439.50

                          (as notified)

                        Project expenditure:                             71.67

                          (See separate statements attached) [2]

                        Net expenditure on Special Events:

                          (See separate statements attached)

                        Net expenditure on Branch Sub-Groups:

                          (See separate statements attached)

                        Other expenditure (please specify)

      Total Payments:                                                   511.17

      BALANCE AT END OF YEAR:                                    (A)   1347.30

      Made up of:       Bank: Account 'A'                              1347.30

                              Account 'B'


        Total Balance:                                           (B)   1347.30

        ('A' and 'B' should agree)

        Please enclose bank statement (or copy), and a list of outstanding


Auditor's Report

I certify that the above Receipts and Payments Account for the

year................are in accordance with the books and vouchers of

the...................Branch, and that all the transactions carried out have

been proper to the purposes of the Branch.

.....................19..                           Auditor...................


T L van Raalte......Treasurer

[1] £50 from Academic Press for publicity; £2 each from 16 non-BCS members.

[2] Speaker's expenses £16.05; X3J3 Observer's fee £55.62.




Name of Group FORTRAN

No. of Members 108

No. of BCS Members 86

No. and type of regular meetings   5 meetings in the year [2 at BCS Headquarters,

3 at Birkbeck College, London.  Av. attendance 17 Format: whole day [Monday);

morning - business and language development/ standardisation work; afternoon -

seminar by invited speaker.

Studies undertaken

Publications   Various articles & comments in trade press [COMPUTING, COMPUTER

                           WEEKLY etc]

Relations with other bodies Liaison with ANSI X3J3, BSI/OIS/5 and ISO/TC97/SC5/WG9

Other activities Delegation to ISO Fortran Experts meeting in Geneva April 1984.

Election of Officers  Election for 1984/5 postponed to June, current officers:

                                     Chairman: J.D. WILSON

                                      Secretary: M. NUNN

                                      Treasurer: T.L. van RAALTE

General Remarks

Projects for next year Maintain strong links with ISO and ANSI language

committees. Publicise, and monitor UK view oF draft standard Fortran 8X

due out in 1985.

Chairman J.D. WILSON

( signature )

Please return this form to Julia Allen, Liaison Executive (Specialist Groups)

The British Computer Society, 13 Mansfield Street, London WlM 0BP. Not

later than 27 April 1984.


To:          BCS, NAG, DAP, etc.

From:        John Reid

Date:        17 May 1984

Subject:     Report on X3J3 meeting at Boston, 7-11 May 1984


[l]     90(*)JCA-11 Approval of FIB-1 for public release

[2]     Fortran 8x 'hit list'

[3]     87(*)JLW-4 Letter from Wilson to Wagener

[4]     88(*)JLW-2 Letter from Wagener to Wilson

[5]     90(.)JLW-1 Organisation of the Fortran 8x draft proposed standard

[6]     90(*)JCA-19 Fortran 8x survey

[7]     90(6)RAH-2 WHERE statements and transformational functions

[8]     90(13)AW/JKR-1b Rewrite of Chapter 14 of S7

[9]     90(7)KWH-1 CONDITION/ENABLE proposal

[10]    90(8)DDP-1 Treatment of initialized entities

[11]    90(9)LJO-1 Pointer proposal

[12]    90(9)JKR-6 Pointers

[13]    90(9)KWH-11 Pointers

[14]    90(9)BTS-2a Ranged integers

[15]    90(11)JHM-1 INQUIRE

[16]    90(11)JHM-4 PAD=

[17]    90(11)JHM-6 PROMPT=

[18]    90(9)JKR-3 Intrinsic for CPU time

Note:   Formal votes are always two-way (Yes-No). Straw votes

        are usually three-way (Yes-No-Undecided) but may

        involve more choices.

l.     Summary

There was much concern and discussion about the negative votes

of IBM and DEC [l] re publication of the Fortran Information Bulletin

(FIB). Since both were essentially saying that F8x is too big, the

steering committee held an evening meeting to consider reducing its

size and most X3J3 members attended. It was agreed that the language

is too large (15-4-4) and a 'hit list' [2] of 30 features that could

be removed was established. A straw vote on how many of these should

go was

                more than 20:        3

                10 to 19    :        8

                3 to 9      :        8

                0 to 2      :        3

and votes were taken on each feature(see[2]). It was concluded that

the committee would not agree to a sizeable reduction. DEC was also

concerned about the ease of transition from F77 to F8x and the

following extra wording for the FIB was agreed. "No Fortran 77

features will be removed; it remains X3J3's intent that any standard-

conforming Fortran 77 program will be a valid Fortran 8x program and

that, with exceptions clearly listed in the document, new Fortran 8x

features can be compatibly incorporated into such programs". This is

not a change of policy by X3J3; it merely spells the policy out more


        It remains the chairman's intention that fresh technical

proposals are confined to the August meeting and that polishing up the

document is the priority for the meetings from November onwards.

Individual members will be permitted to bring proposals to the

committee in August without going through subgroups (a "one-off"

dispensation). Straw voting on the whole document will begin at the

February meeting. Formal voting on releasing it for public comment

will be by mail ballot and it is hoped that this will happen later in

1985. Votes of "no" in the mail ballot will require explanations.

        The committee has accepted my invitation to meet in Oxford, July

8-12, 1985. This will replace the August meeting in 1985.

2.      Kenneth Wilson presentation

        Kenneth Wilson (Nobel prize winner) corresponded with Jerry

Wagener last year, [3] and [4], essentially asking the committee to

stop work. He was invited to make a presentation to the committee at

this meeting. He was listened to with great attention and spoke about

the GIBBS project at Cornell. This aims to provide a software

framework for a scientist's work-station that captures the history of

the development of the work and modularizes it in a natural way (e.g.

for solving a partial differential equation, there would be separate

modules for the equation itself, the grid, the boundary conditions,

etc.). It would be a preprocessor that produces Fortran object code.

There was no mention of other similar work elsewhere and he did not

present a convincing case for an extremely conservative new standard.

3.      Format of the draft proposed standard

        Jerry Wagener [5] proposed a substantial restructuring of S7,

which currently is organised similarly to the F77 standard. His view

is that the new concepts (e.g. array features, derived data types)

make the old format inappropriate; after minor amendment his

proposal passed (24-0). It was not decided whether a new standing

document S8 would replace S7 or whether S7 could evolve to the new

format. Jerry undertook to write a key chapter (Chapter 2, Terms and

Concepts) for August and other committee members were assigned to

rewrite other chapters for November.

4.      Adams questionnaire

        Jeanne Adams prepared a questionnaire [6] to accompany the FIB

in the hope of getting reactions from users of the language, and asked

the committee to fill it in as a trial. I have added the results to

[6] because they give an indication of the sentiment of the committee,

but actual users are likely to have different views.

5.      Array features

        There is a problem with the use of [ and ] for array constructors

because these characters are not available everywhere. The motion to

allow (/ and /) as alternatives failed (11-12). A straw vote on

replacing [ and ] by (/ and /) failed (6-8-19) and one to replace them

by "something else" succeeded (14-7-6). A clean solution would be to

use < and > but this would mean that these characters could never be

used instead of .LT. and .GT. . A straw vote on this use of < and >

was undecided (11-9-10). It was hoped that someone would move such a

proposal in August.

        There was an inconclusive discussion on the meaning of

"transformational" as an adjective for a user function. A proposal to

define a function to be transformational "if the result or any of the

arguments are array-valued" failed (7-13). The term is only used to

specify which functions may not appear in WHERE blocks and this was

resolved by changing "transformational" to "non-elemental".

        Two proposals [7] for extending WHERE to transformational

functions were considered by the array subgroup. Making WHERE qualify

just the assignment was not liked (1-9-2) but allowing

transformational functions, with the interpretation that no WHERE

control is applied to their arguments, was liked (7-3-2) and was

passed by the main committee (13-8).

6.      Rewrite of the definitions of the intrinsics

        My work with Alan Wilson [8] rewriting the chapter of S7 that

defines the intrinsics, was well received. Jeremy Du Croz's

suggestion to order the full descriptions alphabetically was accepted

(27-3-1), but the wording "processor-dependent approximation to" for

functions (e.g. sin(x)) whose result is not exact was not liked (2-20-10).

With these changes and a few other minor ones, the rewrite was

accepted (25-0).

7.      Event handling

        Kurt Hirchert presented another tutorial on his approach [9] to

event handling, but the committee was undecided about its adoption

(6-6-25). It is very unfortunate that there is no collaboration between

Kurt and the EWICS group. It is particularly hard to understand why

they did not get together when Kurt went to Geneva. I feel extremely

sad at the prospect of seeing all their work, effort and expense in

attending meetings wasted but can see no prospect of the EWICS

proposal reaching a sufficiently polished state to be accepted in

August, the last meeting for technical proposals. I therefore

proposed a straw vote on the deletion of Chap. 19 of S7 and this was

favoured (16-2-7). A very fine presentation of the aims of the EWICS

group was given by Odd Pettersen, but he has not been strongly

involved with their Fortran proposal and will not be able to get to

the next meeting. His appeal that the proposal to delete Chap. 19

should not be moved at this meeting was respected.

8.      Initialized entities

        There are unresolved problems in relation to the interactions

between INITIAL and DATA, SAVE, and RECURSIVE. Dan Pearl's proposal

[10] that initialized entities be treated always as if SAVE were

specified was favoured (16-0-3).

9.      Pointers

        Three presentations on pointers were made. Dick Hendrickson

explained his proposal with Linda O'Gara [11] which involves the need

for a special character to access the pointer but no special character

for the pointee; my paper [12] supports this approach. Kurt Hirchert

explained a proposal [13] that does not need a special symbol and

decides by context whether it is the pointer or pointee that is

referenced. I put the case made to me by Mike Delves that

conventional pointers would be much simpler to incorporate at this

late stage in the evolution of the language and would be better

understood by everyone. A straw vote on wanting pointers was split

(15-17-6) and a straw vote on the different approaches went

                11 Traditional (Delves)

                 2 Reverse notation (Hendrickson/O'Gara)

                20 Contextual (Hirchert)

                 2 Undecided

9.        Ranged integers

        Brian Smith identified a number of problems [14] associated with

a proposal for ranged integers that parallels generalized precision

for reals. These are probably all solvable, but a straw vote did not

favour continuing work (4-16-6).

10.     FORTRAN or Fortran

        Discussion of the FIB revealed disagreement about the use of

capitals in the name of the language. Dick Weaver said that the

convention that is becoming established is that if a name is only

spoken as a sequence of letters (e.g. PL1) then capitals are used,

whereas if it is spoken as a word (e.g. Ada), then lower case is used.

This rule favours Fortran. A straw vote also favoured Fortran (23-7-4).

11.     Input-output

        Minor proposals for INQUIRE [15] were accepted (10-4, 16-0, 14-3).

Addition [16] of an extra optional parameter PAD to the OPEN

statement to permit padding of short formatted records by blanks was

accepted (16-0). The need for a means of supplying a prompt when

reading from a terminal was agreed (16-0-l) and Jim Matheny's proposal

was liked (8-6-3) but not put to a formal vote because it was not in

the pre-meeting distribution (I objected because I wanted to consult

Peter Kirby).

12.     Intrinsic for CPU time

        Opinion was mixed on my proposal for a CPU-time intrinsic.

Objections were based on really wanting the cost to be returned and on

the impossibility of defining the precise meaning, particularly in a

multi-processor environment. A straw vote on the general idea was

divided (7-7-2).




A N S Addo

J B Haseler

T Sankey

P Allatt

J E Hickling

D M Scales

Malcolm J Appleford

W S Hilder

J L Schonfelder

Kevin Ashley

Dr I D Hill

B H Shearing

Elizabeth Aylmer-Kelly

D J Holmes

F B Smith

Dr J C Baldwin

Dr J S Hutton

F J Smith

Mrs D Balmer

C R Jesshope

W Swindells

Professor D W Barron

G J King

A S Tak

L F Bennett

P M S Kraven

M Tedd

Mrs J A Bettess

Chris Lazou

R Thurston

P D Bond

Chris Little

David M Vallance

J Boyd

William Little

A J B Walker

S G Brazier

David Littlewood

Howard K Watkins

K Brown

Peter Loftus

Steve Watkins

Mrs C J Cable

D Lomas

Andrew Westlake

P H Cartwright

C K Mackinnon

Alan Wilson

B J Cavalot

C W Martin

John Wilson

U P Cheah

Brian Meek


R A Clement



I P Cliff

Dr Gantam Mitra


I Cuthbert

J D Murchland


A C Davenhall

David Muxworthy


C Dellow

David Ng


J L Dyke

Professor B Niblett


John H Elkin

K Normington


D Fincham

Mike Nunn


William Flexner

T D Palmer


Dr B Ford

D W Payne


D P Fordred

P Phillips


A Georgiades

Andrew Porter


Mrs Anne Gosling

C J Purchase


Dr E W Gorczynski

T L van Raalte


Mrs J E Graves

S M O'Regan


A R Grant

J K Reid


Dr K Graupner

L R Rice


A Hall

J Roberts-Jones


D T Hall

Dr R T Rowles


Gary Harding

G A Ruscoe


D Harris

M H Saeedi



Frank Engel Jnr           - USA

Ian M Hunter              - Australia

Jeanne T Martin           - USA

Dr Loren P Meissner       - USA

M Metcalf                 - Switzerland

Dr M W Wigan              - Australia

Dr Theodore J Williams    - USA



The current list of certified FORTRAN compilers by the level for»

which they are certified is as follows:

Subset Level

Burroughs            B20 FORTRAN Release 4.0

Conv. Tech.          CT FORTRAN 9.0

DEC                  PDP-11 FORTRAN Version 5.0

DEC                  VAX PDP-11 FORTRAN Version 5.0

DEC                  DECsystem-20 Model 2020 FORTRAN-20 Version 7

DEC                  DECsystem-10 Model 1091 FORTRAN-10 Version 7

MODCOMP              MODCOMP NASA Extended FORTRAN 78

Plexus               Plexus FORTRAN77 Version 1.1

Full Level

Burroughs            Large Systems FORTRAN77 Version 3.4.1

Burroughs            Medium Systems FORT77 Version 6.7

CSC                  CSTS FORTRAN Release FTN148

CDC                  CDC Cyber FORTRAN5 Level 587

CDC                  CDC Cyber FORTRAN 200 (G201-25)

Conv. Tech.          CTIX FORTRAN 77 Version 2.1

CRAY                 CRAY FORTRAN Translator (CFT)

D&B Computing        IBM VS FORTRAN Release 3 Mod 0

Data General         AOS/VS FORTRAN 77 Revision 2.21

Data General         AOS FORTRAN 77 Revision 2.11

DEC                  VAX-11 FORTRAN Version 3.2

DEC                  DECsystem-20 2060 Model B FORTRAN-20 Version 10

Gould                Gould FORTRAN-77+ Release 4.0

Gould                Gould FORTRAN 77/X32 Release 2.0

Gould                Gould PS-3000 FORTRAN 77 Version 2.1

Harris               Harris H800 FORTRAN 77 Version 3.12 (SAU)

Harris               Harris H800 FORTRAN 77 Version 3.12 (Non-SAU)

Honeywell            DPS 8 FORTRAN (8)FZ3.0

Honeywell            DPS 6 FORTRANA Release 2.1

Honeywell            Multics FORTRAN Version 10.2

Honeywell            DPS 8 FORTRAN-77 Release C00

IBM                  VS FORTRAN Release 3.0 (5748-F03)

ICL                  VME FORTRAN 77 Release 8003

Intel                FORTRAN 86 Release 2.1

NCR                  VRX FORTRAN Version 25

Perkin-Elmer         FORTRAN VII Release R05-01

Prime                Prime FORTRAN 77 Rev. 19.4

Ryan-McFar.          RM/FORTRAN Ver. 1.4.0

Salford Univ.        FTN-77

Siemens              FOR1 Version 1.51

Sperry Corp.         1100 Series ASCII FORTRAN Level 1OR1A

Stratus              VOS FORTRAN Release 2.4a

Tandem               FORTRAN T9202E01

United Info.         CDC Cyber FORTRAN 5.1 Level 552

United Info.         Cray CFT FORTRAN Version 1.10

Wang                 FORTRAN 77 Ver. 1.00.02




1.    Major emphasis:      F77   -        standardise existing extensions to


                           F8X   -        make FORTRAN a modern, reliable,

                                          portable language.

2.    F8X milestones:

            August 1984          -        complete technical proposals

            November 1984        -        complete re-write of selected sections

            February 1985        -        complete detailed editing of the

                                          language specification document S7

             late summer 1985    -        distribute draft standard for public


                        1987     -        review public comments

                        1988     -        publication of the new standard

                                          X3.9 - 1988 ("FORTRAN 88")

3. F8X comprises:


                        |        |           |

                        | Core   | Deprecated|

                        |        | features  |

                        |        |           |


4.      A number of straw votes (39) were taken on the new language's content. Some

of the more interesting ones were :

        F8X should contain deprecated features 21-0-3

        Deprecated features can be edited out and leave a consistent document 22-2-0

        Processors required to optionally flag use of deprecated features 10-2-11.

5.      Jerrold Wagener (chairman, ForTec committee) wrote that among the additions

contemplated for F8X five stood out viz.-

        array operations

        improved facilities for numerical computation

        programmer defined data types

        facilities for modular data and procedure definitions

        concept of deprecated features.

6.      New facilities offered by 8X included:

        i.    Environmental inquiry intrinsics eg:

                     HUGE           -  largest number of argument type

                     EPSILON        -  very small positive number

        ii.   Event handling by user defined interrupts

        iii.  Free form statements

        iv.   Multiple statements per line delimited by semi-colon.

7.      Deprecated features are features marked as deprecated in 8X and which may be

removed from 9X. They tend to fall into 5 categories viz:

        i.     storage association related

        ii.    facilities superseded by something better

        iii.   constructs considered had practice in current language theory.

Examples of deprecated features are:

        - assumed size dummy arrays

        - passing scalars to dummy arrays

        - BLOCK DATA

        - COMMON statement

        - ENTRY statement

        - EQUIVALENCE statement

        - F77 source form

        - statement functions

        - arithmetic IF

        - computed G0 TO (replaced by CASE statement)

        - DATA statement

        - DIMENSION statement

        - DOUBLE PRECISION statement (replaced by PRECISION statements)

        - F77 DO statement

8.      Features still under development include:

        exception handling

        POINTER data type

        BIT data type.