From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Jan 4 11:55:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo1 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo1@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 56BA4149E0; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:55:01 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFB0572A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:54:32 +0100 (CET) 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 j04ApIwE039283 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:51:23 +0100 (CET) (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 j04A5ZW3010171; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:05:35 GMT 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 j04A5rIc003077; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:05:53 GMT Message-ID: <41DA6A81.6050700@rl.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:05:53 +0000 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:1.4.3) Gecko/20041005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: [Fwd: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3194) WG5 letter ballot on interpretations] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030709070403090200030005" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030709070403090200030005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------030709070403090200030005 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3194) WG5 letter ballot on interpretations" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3194) WG5 letter ballot on interpretations" Received: from balin.rl.ac.uk ([130.246.135.155]) by exchange07.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZZ70LYHL; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0000 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 j049wNW3009787; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:58:23 GMT 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 j049wfIc003039; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:58:41 GMT X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Message-ID: <41DA68D0.1070408@rl.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:58:40 +0000 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:1.4.3) Gecko/20041005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard E Maine Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3194) WG5 letter ballot on interpretations References: <20050103183954.8EE8112E3C@open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20050103183954.8EE8112E3C@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Richard E Maine wrote: > David Muxworthy said: > > > JP-24: The proposed edits are already in F03 (at 166:6-7) so defeat of > > this interpretation would be unfortunate (also true of 000103). > > Though I noticed the same facts (at least for 103 - I didn't do enough > correlation to trace the JP-24 edit to f2003), I came to a different > conclusion, > namely that these interps should be defeated as moot. (My > ballot was submitted previously). > > It seems to mostly come down to the question of what standard we > are interpreting. If we are interpreting f95, then passing these seems > reasonable... though other of the interps would make no sense as f95 > ones. If we are interpreting f2003, then I'd say that these 2 make no > sense. > > As best as I can tell, the interps are a mix of f95 and f2003 ones, > with no explicit distinction. > I have been working on the interps in a personal capacity (i.e. without my Convener's hat on), but am not quite finished. My draft initial comment is: "I have not let this affect my votes, but I think the DEFECT TYPE for items 000004 to 000104, F90/000049, F90/000070, F90/000206 to F90/000210 and JP-24 should be 'Fortran 95 interpretation', since the references are to Fortran 95. Similarly, I think the DEFECT TYPE for items F90/000096, F90/000140, and F90/000180 should be Fortran 90 interpretation? or the words changed to refer to Fortran 95. And it would not hurt to label each F03 item as 'Fortran 2003 interpretation'. We can no longer issue a corrigendum for Fortran 95, but the fact of the matter is that no compilers for Fortran 2003 are available yet so our workhorse is Fortran 95. Therefore, interpreting Fortran 95 and issuing carefully considered edits for it is a very useful function. It would not be helpful at this time to rephrase the questions in terms of Fortran 2003, but where edits are needed to Fortran 95, we should consider whether the corresponding edits are needed to Fortran 2003." Happy New Year! John. --------------030709070403090200030005--