From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Jan 12 17:17:49 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 DB85A150E5; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:17:49 +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 398C714CBF for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:17:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j0CGCVwE067244 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:14:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:29 -0800 Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:55:26 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20050112123849.36E3D149EA@open-std.org> References: <20050112123849.36E3D149EA@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5EB83785-64B2-11D9-BC6A-000D93AD336A@nasa.gov> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard E Maine Subject: Re: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3207) Malcolm Cohen's WG5 interpretation ballot(resent) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:55:24 -0800 To: WG5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Malcolm said: > I'll also note that FAILing an interp which contains edits already > applied > to F2003 implies that we should consider removing those edits from > F2003. That depends on what reason it failed for, which in turn depends a lot on what people think this vote is about (which isn't at all clear to me). I saw a title that said f2003 interps. Whether that is what was intended or not is hard to tell, but that's what the ballot was labeled as and that's the basis on which I voted. If an interp fails because the edit is already in f2003, then that doesn't seem to constitute reason to remove the edit from f2003. I'll also note that there have been multiple cases of interps that specifically suggested that a change might be merited for a subsequent revision but not as the kind of retroactive change that would be implied by an interp edit. So that is another reason why an f90 or f95 interp might fail, but the f2003 edit still be appropriate. Of course, the standards for "reason to consider" are much looser than for "reason to do", since I'd presume that the consideration would include evaluating the reason for failure. So I can agree that it might constitute reason to consider, as long as the importance of the word "consider" (probably carefully put there) is not overlooked. > So saying that we should defeat a (F90 or F95) interp because the > editor > assumed that the interp would pass and therefore already applied the > edits > to F2003 makes no sense to me at all. I'd agree if they were indeed f90 or f95 interps. That seems to be the main question. I think that clarity is important for a standard. In this case, the first thing that needs to be clear is what standard we are even talking about. Let me add a small point of order - the editor made no changes based on any such assumptions. Any such changes incorporated were explicitly voted on by J3 as f2003 edits. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain