From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Jan 4 20:59:51 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 708DD149E9; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:59:51 +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 5885D12B08 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:59:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j04JurwE045316 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:56:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from longb@cray.com) Received: from relayb.mw.cray.com (relayb.us.cray.com [192.168.252.110]) by mail1.cray.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/gw-1.9) with ESMTP id j04Jslt7004997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from saffron.mw.cray.com (saffron.mw.cray.com [172.31.27.14]) by relayb.mw.cray.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/hub-1.10) with ESMTP id j04Jsgkf016464; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-20-127 [172.31.20.127]) by saffron.mw.cray.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/irix-ham-1.2) with ESMTP id j04JsfXZ022610; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <41DAF504.3080304@cray.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:56:52 -0600 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3196) [Fwd: WG5 letter ballot on interpretations] References: <20050104105501.883A812B08@open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20050104105501.883A812B08@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk John Reid wrote: > > > 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." Users may be interested in edits to f95, though they should not put too much focus on that document since their actual compilers are now extended to include at least some of the f03 features. They would be better off with a copy of MRC. From a vendor's perspective, the f95 document is now irrelevant. Even though we (except perhaps Malcolm) may not be finished yet, the main work in progress is the f03 implementation and the only relevant document is 04-007. Any "is this conforming" question is now always against the new standard. If there is an error, or need for clarification, in the f03 standard, then we need to make the edits there, independent of how or when the question arose. If there are cases where a problem in f90 or f95 was either fixed or made irrelevant by f03, we should clearly say that in the interp response and point the reader to the new standard. I see little value in specifying edits for dead documents. Cheers, Bill -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120