Re: [Chasm-interop-devel] The future of Chasm?

[Craig R. <cra...@la...>]

On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Tom Epperly wrote:

>
>> 3) Assuming the F2008 stuff is an appropriate replacement, Babel  
>> needs
>>    to extended to support it -- testing the compiler for support in
>>    autoconf, and generating the appropriate code.
>>
> This assumption is completely and utterly incorrect. The  
> interoperability provided by the F2003/F2008 standards (as they  
> currently exist) is insufficient for (at least) the reasons  
> enumerated above. To be utterly clear, we cannot provide Babel  
> users the level of Fortran interoperability that they're accustomed  
> to in Babel's F90/95 binding using the features available in F2003/ 
> F2008 standard as they exist today.

To clarify the F2008 C-interoperability standard, it currently is  
just F2003 as Tome says.  The new Chasm-like additions have been  
voted into a TR and will come out later (the exact details of what it  
will look like are being debated).  However, this is all a moot point  
as F2008 won't appear in compilers for years.

Cheers,
Craig