This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
What's the standard way of referring to gfortran in the manual?
- From: Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:51:36 -0700
- Subject: What's the standard way of referring to gfortran in the manual?
- Organization: Stanford University
In looking through the manual and making some corrections, I've noticed
that we're quite inconsistent in how we refer to gfortran. At times
it's "GNU Fortran", at times "GNU Fortran 95", at times "gfortran", at
times "Gfortran", and at times "@code{gfortran}", without much of a real
pattern. Even in the chapter headings, we have both "GFORTRAN" and "GNU
Fortran 95"!
Is there an official GNU or gfortran standard for this that we should be
following?
If there isn't, I would propose the following:
(1) @code{gfortran} should be used for references to the program name as
entered on the command line, and only for those references.
(2) Only one of the following names should be used consistently
throughout the documentation to refer to the compiler. I've listed them
in my order of preference:
(2a) "GNU Fortran"
(2b) "GFortran"
(2c) "Gfortran"
(2d) "gfortran" (but capitalized as "Gfortran" at the beginning of
sentences)
Comments? In note that the GCC manual uses "GCC" and "G++" (note
capitalization!), and that the Intel manual uses "Intel Visual Fortran",
in this context.
(There is also the occasional distinction between the GNU Fortran
compiler and the GNU Fortran language. The GCC manual distinguishes
these as "GNU C++" and "G++", and the Intel manual similarly
distinguishes "the Intel Fortran langauge" and "the Intel Visual Fortran
compiler". In describing language extensions, I believe we should
follow suit and refer to "GNU Fortran" regardless of what we call the
compiler.)
- Brooks