From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Apr 6 16:57:43 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i36Evhxp091815 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:57:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from balin.rl.ac.uk (balin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.155]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i36EvaE7091810 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:57:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by balin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i36EwCYW032527; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:58:12 +0100 Received: from rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i36F0Fni007049; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:00:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4072C5FE.3000106@rl.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:00:14 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: Plans for the next revision Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010105030302060107030506" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010105030302060107030506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------010105030302060107030506 Content-Type: text/plain; name="message" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message" WG5, In my draft plan, I used the terms 'significant features', 'minor enhancements' and 'editorial improvements', but I have come to the view that this is too imprecise. Different people have different views on what these mean. Here is a first try at an 8-point scale of severity, based on things that we have done recently. I would like to thank Richard Maine, Van, and Malcolm for commenting on drafts of this scale. Best wishes, John. ................................................................. 1. Minor editorial (less than 10 lines altered). 2. Significant editorial (up to a page altered) with no technical change. 3. Very minor technical change. An example is adding the optional argument KIND to IACHAR (see 1.12 in N1509). Also major editorial (up to a chapter altered) with no technical change. 4. Minor technical change. An example is changing type-bound generics to be sets of specific named type-bound procedures (see TC4 in N1506). 5. Technical change likely to need more than two J3 meetings to develop. An example is reallocation of allocatable arrays (see TC11 in N1506). 6. Technical change likely to need more than a year to develop. The modules and allocatable TRs are examples. 7. Technical change likely to need more than 2 years to develop. The IEEE TR is an example. 8. Technical change likely to need more than 3 years to develop. Interfacing with C and the OO features are examples. Notes. 1. The level of a technical change is likely to be affected by whether necessary edits are scattered over the document of mostly confined to one place. 2. The level of a technical change should be influenced by how difficult it is to implement. --------------010105030302060107030506--