This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

What's the standard way of referring to gfortran in the manual?


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]