Present:        M J Appleford   - The Ove Arup Partnership

                D Bailey        - Salford University

                L Devaney       - LB Ealing

                M R Dolbear     - BP International, London

                J L Dyke        - HRC

                T M R Ellis     - Oxford University

                M L Ellnor      - BICC Research and Eng Ltd

                W Flexner       - Retired

                D T Griffiths   - System Software Factors

                B R Hogg        - British Gas

                D Lambert       - MOD, DOAE

                Chris Lazou     - University of London Computer Centre

                Brian Meek      - Queen Elizabeth College

                David Muxworthy - University of Edinburgh

                K Normington    - Coventry Polytechnic

                Mike Nunn       - CCTA

                A R T Ormsby    - University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

                E G Reilly      - BSRA

                N W Smith       - British Gas

                B Steiner       - Bacon and Woodrow

                D Vallance      - Salford University

                Dr H Walters    - BICC Research and Eng Ltd       

                D Watkins       - UMIST

                Alan Wilson     - ICL

                John Wilson     - Leicester University


                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


                                CV1 5PB


Apologies were received from John Reid (Harwell) and Lawrie Schonfelder (Liverpool


2.      MINUTES OF LAST MEETING  [10 September 1984]

The minutes were accepted.


Draft BSI standard document "Method for Specifying Requirements for FORTRAN

Language Processors".

BSI have totally re-written this in their own english style. It is expected

to be accepted at their mid-December meeting and then go out for public comment.

It will be published in BSI News, but this is unlikely to be widely seen in

the Fortran world. David Muxworthy, a member of the BSI committee, will try to get

copies for the BCS Fortran Group. Appendix A of these minutes contains the front

page of the draft document. Anyone wishing to receive a copy of the full draft should

write to:

        A J Williams

        British Standards Institute

        2 Park Street


        W1A 2BG

                          Cost is £3.50.


        (i)      BCS Specialist Groups Board.

                Two recent meetings had taken place which were attended by our

                Chairman. Main items of interest were:

                (a)     A proposal to offer non-BCS members an "affiliate"

                        membership at £14-15 pa.

                (b)     Dr Barber has retired and Mr d'Agapeyeff has taken

                        over his duties as Vice-President.

       (ii)     A BCS congress is being organised from 29-31 March 1985 to discuss

                the future of the Society and each Specialist Group is being asked

                to send 2 representatives. Agenda and timetable are in appendix B.

                Anyone interested in representing the Fortran Group should contact

                John Wilson.

      (iii)     Budgets submitted by Specialist Groups are more than the total

                funds available so there will probably be some cutbacks in


       (iv)     A new Specialist Group called "Computational Physics" is being

                formed. Anyone interested should write to the organiser,

                Peter Marcer, 65 Wellsway, Keynsham, Avon. [see appendix F].

5.      X3J3 PROGRESS

John Reid has kindly supplied a report on the 12-16 November meeting of X3J3 in

Fort Lauderdale (see appendix C). In John's absence Alan Wilson gave his

impressions of the X3J3 meeting:

       (i)      X3J3 is working on S8 document (defining the content of "8x")

                which it hopes to have ready for public review a year hence.

      (ii)      BIT data type - is now back in "8x"

     (iii)      WHILE statement - until the X3J3 meeting before last was not a

                                  feature being considered but was then voted in.

                                  But at the Florida meeting was taken out.


     (iv)       Applications Module - this is the latest evolutionary stage of

                                      the core and modules concept. It has

                                      facilities replacing F77 concepts. Amoco

                                      wanted a standard module for fast Fourier


      (v)       Exception handling - still some way to go before finalisation.

     (vi)       Source form and significant blanks - some confusion in this area

                                                     and eventuality is uncertain.

Anyone with comments on the proposed content of "8x" can forward them via

Alan Wilson, John Reid or Lawrie Schonfelder who regularly attend X3J3

meetings as UK representatives.


Following the X3J3 meeting in Oxford next summer there will be a Fortran Forum

in London on Monday 15 July. John Reid is arranging the agenda which will include

leading members of X3J3 talking about the content of the next Fortran Standard

"8x". Our Group is hoping for an attendance of about 100-150. Coffee,lunch

and tea will be provided. The fee for attending is still to be decided but will

be notified in the newsletter accompanying the minutes of our next meeting which

will also contain a booking form.


The Group would welcome suggestions on topics for talks in the afternoons at

future meetings. Anyone with ideas please complete appendix D and return to the



The next meeting of the Group will take place on Monday 11 March at BCS HQ from

lO.45am to 4pm. It will include the AGM. In the afternoon there will be a

talk on "DEC Fortran compilers and program development aids" by a speaker from

Digital Equipment. More details will appear in "Computing" nearer the date.


At the afternoon session Dr David Bailey from Salford University gave a talk

on "Mixed Fortran and Prolog", describing the implementation of the Salford Lisp/

Prolog System in Fortran 77. A synopsis appears in appendix E.



31 December 1984


Private circulation Document 84/54563

BSI Standard header

Technical Committee OIS/5 -                                      Date: October 1984

Programming Languages




This British Standard has been prepared under the direction of the Office and

Information Systems Standards Committee. It is complementary to ANSI X3.9 -

1978 (= ISO 1539), the internationally recognized standard for the computer

programming language FORTRAN and needs to be read in conjunction with that


Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal


CONTENTS                                                                 Page

Foreword                                                                    1

Introduction                                                                2


1.   Scope                                                                  4

2.   Definitions                                                            5

3.   Contents of the specification                                          6

4.   Specification of requirements related to the requirements of

     ANSI X3.9 - 1978                                                       7

5.   Specification of additional requirements not covered by

     ANSI X3.9 - 1978                                                      48

TABLE 1. Assignment statements                                             30

ZZ6277v                                                             84/64563

Head Office 2 Park Street London W1A ZBS Tel O1-629 9000 Tx 266933 BSILON G

Information Services and Marketing Linford Wood Milton Keynes MK14 GLE Tel 0908 320033 Enquiries Tel 0908 320066 Tx 825777

Quality Assurance Division Maylands Avenue Heme] Hempstead Herts HP2 4SQ Tel 0442 3111 Tx 82424 BSIHHC G

Manchester Office 3 York Street Manchester M2 2AT Tel 061-832 3731 Tx 665969 BSIMAN G

Form 2-8305


BCS letter head

To all Specialist

Groups Chairman

Date: 27th November 1984

Dear Chairman

Members Congress 29-31 March 1985

As you are aware the Society is organising a Member Congress at the University

of Reading to look at the image of the Society, its purpose and its future


In order that the Specialist Groups obtain as much representation and exposure

as possible, groups are again asked to nominate a delegate to attend the Congress.

(Some groups have already nominated a delegate and may ignore this matter)

Enclosed is a copy of the proposed timetable and a form on which Specialist

Groups are asked to name their delegate, with 1st and 2nd choice. It would be

appreciated if all groups could return the forms, even if only to show a

'nil return'.

I would also like to confirm that fares to Reading and all accommodation and

conference fees will be paid by the Society.

Thanking you, in advance, for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely

Julia Allen

Liaison Executive Specialist Groups




Members' Congress                 PROPOSED TIMETABLE

Friday 29th March 1985

3.00-7.00 pm      Arrival at St Andrew's Hall, Reading.

7.15 pm           Buffet dinner

8.30-9.30 pm      Opening Session of Congress (in St Andrew's dining


                  Alex d'Agapeyeff

                  Bar open to 10.30. Food available for late arrivals.

Saturday 30th March 1985

08.00             Breakfast at St Andrews

09.15-10.45       Plenary Session 1 in Lecture Theatre

                  THE CHARTERED SOCIETY;responsibilities;framework

                  and opportunities. John Ivinson & Derek Harding

10.45-11.15       Coffee

11.15-12.30       Plenary Session 2 - Introduction to the working

                  parties by the working party chairmen (4 x 15 mins)

12.30-14.00       LUNCH

14.00-15.30       1st working party Session

16.00-17.30       2nd working party Session

17.30-19.00       Free time/special sessions/ overrun etc

19.30 for 20.00   (Formal) reception & dinner.

                  Guest speaker: John Ashworth or Philip Hughes

Sunday 31st March 1985

08.30             Breakfast

09.30-10.45       Final working party session

10.45-11.15       Coffee

11.15-12.30       Plenary Session 3 - reports of the working parties

13.00-14.30       LUNCH

14.30-15.30       Plenary Session 4 - summing up and rallying

                  (Bob McLaughlin)

15.30             Tea and dispersal


1.   Outward:

                  Image and Role of Society

                  Social responsibilities

                  Next 5 years - leading edge

                  Technical developments

                  End-user activity

2.   Inward:



                  Services to members:



                       other services


3.   Professional:

                  Professional Development Scheme

                  Courses - internal for BCS exams


                  Exemptions and validations

                  Professional standards and Codes of Practice

                  Registration and licensing

4.   Miscellaneous:

                  Junior membership and schools relations


                  Relationship with other bodies.


The following names were put forward as desirable working party


Outward:          Adrian Norman or

                  Gerry Fisher

Inward:           Chris Hudson or

                  Dick Paine

Professional:     Ernest Morris or

                  Dennis Blackwell

Miscellaneous:    Jim Nix or

                  David Menzies


To:          NAG,BCS,DAP, etc.

From:        John Reid

Date:        20 November 1984

Subject:     Report on X3J3 meeting at Fort Lauderdale,

             12-16 November 1984


 [1] 92(*)WSB-4 Delete WHILE control from the block DO

 [2] 92(*)JTM-2 WHILE control considered harmful

 [3] 92(.)RPJW-l Reconsidering WHILE

 [4] 92.RLP-l Signal processing module

 [5] 92(7)KWH-l Exception handling in hierarchically designed programs

 [6] 92(7)KWH-2 CONDITION and ENABLE

 [7] 92(7)KWH-3 Intrinsic conditions proposal

 [8] 92(11)JLW/JKR-l Source form

 [9] 90(*)JTM-l Proposed intra-language compatibility policy

[10] 92(9)JLS-l Extended declarations

[1l] 92(*)GEM-l Bit data type proposals

[12] 92.JLW-3 Bit data type module

[13] 92(9)KWH-4 Proposals on variably associated names

[14] 92(6)JKR-l Many-one maps in IDENTITY

[15] 92(6)JKR-2 Replacement of vector-valued sections

[16] 92(11)JKR-3 RECL lengths

[17] 92(*)JTM-l Construct names - where to put them

[18] 92(9/6)JLS-2 Qualification of structure arrays

l.      Summary

        This was an active meeting which was agreed to be the last for

technical proposals other than those needed to rectify flaws in the

language during document preparation. Proposals were therefore pushed

through to formal votes in circumstances that would normally have led

to fresh proposals being prepared for the next meeting. The following

were passed

        (l) deletion of WHILE,

        (2) exception handling,

        (3) deletion of event handling,

        (4) multi-statement lines and in-line commentary in the old source form,

        (5) extensions to type statements,

        (6) BIT data type,

        (7) INQUIRY for RECL length of an io-list,

        (8) mathematical notation for comparisons (e.g. < for .LT.),

        (9) use as arrays of arrays of structure components.

        It was followed by a working weekend to consider the language

document S8. The committee has become serious about the writing of S8

as its top priority from now on. No more versions of S7 will be

produced and it will be left to section authors to incorporate

technical proposals passed at this meeting into S8.

2.      DO WHILE

        Three papers ([1],[2],[3]) opposed the DO WHILE on the grounds

that it adds no functionality, that there was negative reaction at the

Fort Collins forum, and that beginners are misled about when the test

is made, whereas exit is just what is needed. It was passed at

Jackson only narrowly (12-l0) and at this meeting was deleted (18-8)

on a roll-call vote.

3.      Application module for signal processing

        The proposal [4] to standardize an application module for signal

processing (Fourier transforms, etc) was not favoured (6-ll-14).

There was concern that few members of the committee have the

competence to judge the merits of such a module, though they have the

competence to judge the interface (the part that would be

standardized); there was confusion as to whether X3J3 is the right

body to standardize such a module, what procedures would be necessary

to do so and what its status would be.

4.      Exception handling

        Kurt Hirchert's proposals on exception handling (see [5]),

essentially unchanged since 6 months ago, were reconsidered. The main

proposal [6] passed (20-5) and the proposal specifying conditions [7]

passed (21-l). A straw vote (10-3-16) favoured handling STOP

similarly. A proposal to delete the event handling features passed

(24-0). A straw vote on "can X3J3 accept the goal of integrating at

least a minimum set of features for multitasking and synchronization

in Fortran 8x?" was negative (6-22-2).

5.      Source form and significant blanks

        The committee spent a long time discussing the source form and

significant blanks but the only change made was to add in-line

commentary and multi-statement lines to the old source form (16-5).

Last meeting's proposal to delete significant blanks was put afresh

and failed (12-12). The idea of having a single source form was

favoured (28-2-6) and Jerry Wagener and I suggested two ways to

achieve this:

        (1)     (see [8]) add to the old source form the compatible parts

                of the new form; deprecate insignificant blanks, and

        (2)     standardize on the new form only but provide a preprocessor

                to convert old programs to the new form.

A straw vote favoured the second approach (5-25-4). It was pointed

out that other minor transformations could be handled (e.g. ".LE."

might be replaced by "<") and such an approach was in line with the

intralanguage (i.e. between versions) compatibility guide-lines [9]

but worries were expressed about whether the preprocessor could be

written without errors and the possibility of the committee being sued

for the consequences of errors. Straw votes on this proposal failed

(5-27-2 and 6-23-2). The original proposal was then reconsidered and

received a favourable straw vote (19-7-6) but eventually failed (7-15)

despite the realization that old standard says nothing about columns

73 onwards so one of the objections, the barrier at column 73, was not

real. Confusion over this matter may have led to the negative vote.

Jerry Wagener's wish for implicit continuation following any line

ending "," and a variety of other possibilities, failed (6-14-12,

9-17-4, 8-18-4).

6.      Extended type statement

        Lawrie Schonfelder[10] proposed extensions to the type statement

to allow all the properties of a data object to be declared in one

statement, which was the main purpose of entity-oriented declarations

(deleted at the last meeting). A simple example of the new form is


Straw votes favoured PARAMETER as opposed to CONSTANT for constants

(14-7-l0), for default ARRAY properties to be included in the

attribute list (e.g. in the above example A and B have shape [10,10]

but C has shape [2O]) (18-8-9), and for the keyword ARRAY rather than

DIMENSION (19-8-8). The proposal passed (22-5). A new INITIALIZE

statement, exemplified by


gives the functionality of DATA for initializing parts of arrays.

7.        BIT data type

        Geoff Millard proposed a BIT data type [11] consisting of a

single bit and relying on a small number of intrinsics and on the

array features of the language to do worthwhile operations. This was

favoured (25-8-5) over the S6 approach of strings of bits (similar to

character data). It was also favoured (22-11-4) over Jerry Wagener's

proposal [12] for derived data type in a module, although the latter

would have given very similar capabilities and have had a very

insignificant effect on the language, confining the description to a

single section; the committee was concerned about the likelihood of

inefficient implementation and about i/o, which is still not resolved

for derived data types. The proposal passed (14-9).

8.      Pointers

        Kurt Hirchert gave a presentation of his ideas [13] on "variably

associated names" and received a favourable straw vote (13-10-9) but

did not have a formal proposal ready.

9.      Language document preparation

        The chairman became very concerned about the technical changes

being passed at a meeting that was intended to give priority to

preparation of the document, and asked the subcommittees to consider

the possibility of standardizing the array features as an extension of

Fortran 77. However no one was keen on the idea, although the array

subgroup reported that there were no technical difficulties. It was

thought that this would not save very much time for the array

features, while it would lose a great deal of time for the rest of the

language. It would also threaten the continuity of the work since

only the array subgroup would remain active. The idea was dismissed

and a ban on technical proposals while S8 is constructed and honed

into shape was accepted.

        It is anticipated that it may be two years before a draft is

available for public comment and a further two years before the

language is formally accepted.

        Those active in the preparation of the document remained for the

weekend after the meeting to work on it.

l0.     Array features

        Ten different ways to express the IDENTIFY syntax were

considered. The preferred variants are exemplified by

        (l) IDENTIFY(F(I)=B(8-I,I), I=l:5)

        (2) IDENTIFY(F(I=l:5)=B(8-I,I))

and in a run-off (l) was slightly more popular (15-12-6).

        My two personal proposals on banning many-one maps in IDENTIFY

statements [14] and replacing vector-valued array sections by

intrinsics [15] failed (5-16,4-19), although in both cases initial

straw votes were favourable (17-8-7,13-9-12). It is disappointing

that so few supported my view of the importance of safety and

regularity as opposed to notational convenience.

        Examples for the function PROJECT were accepted (26-0).

ll.     Input-output

        My proposal [16] on an inquiry statement to find out the lengths

(in processor-dependent units) of an unformatted io-list passed (11-l0).

The keyword RECL was replaced by IOLENGTH so that the statement takes the form


where iolen is an integer variable. I agreed in sub-group that my

first proposal for this purpose in [16] was inadequate and that my

proposal [17] on avoiding automatic line feeds did not meet all the

requirements for input-output to terminals (principally because I did

not address the practice of using separate units for input and output

to a terminal).

12.     Relational operators

        The use of the notation < for .LT., <= for .LE., == for .EQ., <>

for .NE., > for .GT., and >= for .GE. was reconsidered following the

decision at the last meeting not to use <,> for "angle brackets".

This time the proposal passed (16-9).

13.     Return of function results

        Walt Brainerd suggested that the FUNCTION statement could be

simplified by allowing the result to be attached to the return

statement. He did not have a formal proposal but the committee

encouraged him to work on it (l0-4-13).

14.     Construct names

        Jeanne Martin [17] wanted construct names to appear on the right

rather than the left of initial statements of blocks, but did not

convince the committee (8-13).

15.     Qualification of structure arrays

        Lawrie Schonfelder has wished for a long time to be able to use

arrays of structure components as arrays in array expressions and as

actual arguments, but met much opposition. However on this occasion

his proposal 2 [18] passed (2l-l). This keeps the present form (e.g.

STRUCTURE%COMPONENT) and was preferred (25-4-1) to proposal 1, in which

the component names are written ahead of the structure names so that


corresponds to



16.     Next meeting

        The next meeting will be held in the week 11-15 February. The

deadline for pre-meeting distribution (receipt of material in US) is

January 10th.


The Group would welcome suggestions from members for topics etc for future

meetings. So could anyone with ideas complete the attached form and send it

to the Secretary.

        SUBJECT(S)                                    SPEAKER

                                                    Please list anyone (if known)

                                                    who you would suggest to talk

                                                    on each suggested subject.

                                                    [address and phone no. would help]


Please send this to:

Mike Nunn


BCS Fortran Specialist Group


Room 408

Riverwalk House






Salford University developed a Fortran 77 compiler for the ICL 1900 in 1978. At

a later date they implemented it on their PRIME system and went on to sell it

successfully worldwide in competition with PRIME's own compiler.


Prolog was so named as an abbreviation for "Programming in Logic". It first

appeared in 1972 as the result of work on computers in the 1960s associated with

theorem proving using first order predicate calculus.


Rules and facts are the only constituents of Prolog programs.


        (i)     a Prolog fact:

                                parent (joe, olga)

        (ii)    in Prolog you can ask questions in which one of the components

                is a variable (and will thus acquire a value):

                                father (reginald, david)

        (iii)   sets of Prolog rules:

                                brothers (x,y):- parent (z,x) parent (z-y)

                                                 male (x), male (y,x)=y)

                                mother:- parent (x,y) female (x)

        (iv)    whereas in Fortran one can have assignment statements

                                 EG  x=y, y=y+1

                these have no equivalent in Prolog where a variable takes

                one of two states viz: uninstantiated (undefined)

                                            or instantiated

        (v)     lists:


                                 a list of any 3 objects which might acquire

                                 values later


                                 a list of any length in which the first two

                                 elements are a and b


To learn Prolog David Bailey recommends the book "Programming in Prolog" by

Clocksin and Mellish.


The Salford Prolog implementation is written in Fortran 77. One of the essentials

is a flexible mechanism for holding structures. Store is broken up into a large

number of cells used as absolute addresses. Lists of variables are kept in "trails"

with addresses for backtracking and places to jump out to at choice points.

Matrix manipulation and iterative processes are not suitable for Prolog

because they need fast execution speed and easy coding. But engineering packages

seem well Suited to having front-ends written in Prolog.

The Salford implementation costs £2000 to academic users. There are no plans

to port it onto other machines at present.



13 Mansfield Street, London WlM 0BP

Formation of a Specialist Group for the understanding and promotion of

Computation as Physics.

Much research is being reported from the USA in this area which appears

of fundamental importance and highly relevant to the achievement of 5th

Generation Objectives. Its specific remit concerns the physics or thermo

-dynamics of computational processes and their reversibility as understood

via algorithmic information theory and about how computational structures

reproduce and evolve via the theory of cellular automata - the second half

of the computational inheritance that Von Neumann left us. It concerns

Ballistic, Brownian, Boltzman and Cellular Automata architectures.

The purpose is to provide a focus and a nucleus around which those with an

interest in these fields could crystallize their activities and make


Would all those with an interest or potential interest in such a group

please contact:

                        Peter Marcer FBCS

                        65 Wellsway


                        Avon BS18 1HX

                        Tel: 0272 86 4729

It is hoped to constitute the first meeting of the Group at the beginning

of the new year.