From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Jan 13 08:34:53 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 7E0BE1689A; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:34:53 +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 A46D612AB1 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:34:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from cohen.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.108]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j0D7VdwE083965 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:31:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Received: from cohen.nag-j.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cohen.nag-j.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0D7Xg5q077284 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:33:42 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from malcolm@cohen.nag-j.co.jp) Received: (from malcolm@localhost) by cohen.nag-j.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j0D7XfII077283 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:33:42 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from malcolm) From: Malcolm Cohen Message-Id: <200501130733.j0D7XfII077283@cohen.nag-j.co.jp> Subject: Reasons for voting NO on the WG5 interp ballot To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:33:41 +0900 (JST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Richard E Maine wrote: >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. Please shoot the messenger, not the message. The F95 interps (and indeed the historical ones that originated as F90 interps as well) are all against F95. Every last one of them. Only the F03-labelled interps are against F2003. FAILing a WG5 letter ballot means we take the interp all the way back to square one in J3. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous and an utter waste of my time not to mention everyone else's. I find this whole thing with the ballot title rather hard to understand. The very people objecting to actually passing the [correct] interpretations on the grounds that everyone on J3 (not just the editor) thought they had to pass and so therefore did the edits to the F2003 draft, have already voted on these interps multiple times. They are familiar with the interp numbering scheme (it cannot have come as a big surprise that ones labelled F90/ are from Fortran 90, and that the ones with just a number were submitted against Fortran 95). Even though John posted a clarification (though not as convenor) there is still this disconnect between the J3 and the WG5 halves of the brain. Inconceivable. > 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. That sounds like agreement with me that such a reason is not in fact a valid technical reason to reject the interp. Let's just pretend that the title was "F95 and F2003 interps" and make sure we all do the real work of reviewing the interps for technical content. That is WG5's job as final reviewer. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo, Japan. (malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)