This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Emacs and GFortran
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- Cc: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu, Angelo dot Graziosi at roma1 dot infn dot it, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, emacs-devel at gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:45:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: Emacs and GFortran
- References: <20061030211304.GB7761@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <Pine.OSF.4.21.0610310921580.13327-100000@ax0rm1.roma1.infn.it> <20061031151022.GA13987@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <uzmbc5buk.fsf@gnu.org> <454A6F30.2000904@wanadoo.fr>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:20:32 +0100
> From: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>
> Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>,
> Angelo.Graziosi@roma1.infn.it, fortran@gcc.gnu.org,
> emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> Hostility, such as it is, has been triggered by the hectoring attitude
> of those who have crept out of the woodwork to add their halfpenny worth
> to this thread; none of whom have contributed to gfortran, as far as I
> know.
If this paragraph does not have hostility written all over it, then
perhaps I don't know what hostility is.
FYI, those who ``crept out of the woodwork'' did so only _after_ the
complaints about the non-standard error messages were met with clearly
hostile attitude and ``NO'' responses. Perhaps you missed that while
reading the long thread, with some messages out of order due to mail
delivery delays.
> I rather think that the steering committee would support the
> gfortran maintainers, were it to come to that.
If it is really important to you to know, we could start a discussion
with them.