From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Mar 2 17:10:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo2 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo2@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id D62ED1B569; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:10:36 +0000 (UTC) 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 42A321AE28 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mk-ironport-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-ironport-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.23]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k22HA8Zb042556 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:10:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk) Received: from 62-64-206-250.dynamic.dial.as9105.com (HELO mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com) ([62.64.206.250]) by mk-ironport-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2006 17:05:23 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aa4HAJKvBkSHMyw Received: from 62-64-206-250.dynamic.dial.as9105.com ([62.64.206.250]:49942) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FErEv-00038n-9A for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:05:21 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20060228014031.A6D321B56E@open-std.org> References: <20060228014031.A6D321B56E@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Muxworthy Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3350) TS for Co-Array Fortran? Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:05:36 +0000 To: sc22wg5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > It may be desirable to publish a standard for Co-Array Fortran, using > the ISO "Technical Specification" (formerly Type-2 Technical Report) > mechanism. I support Van's proposal that a TS for Co-array Fortran be considered if the development work "is not largely complete at the next J3 meeting". The main advantage would be that a TS would decouple the schedules for the main language and coarray projects so that neither would delay the other. I am concerned about co-arrays delaying publication of the revised standard but, as Van says, given the different ISO procedures for Standards and TSs, it is even conceivable that co-arrays could be given more development time and the TS still be formally approved before the full revised standard. It may not be seen as an advantage, but a TS would also allow vendors the option of producing a processor without co-arrays if that is what they perceive their customer base to require. This of course is not for decision now. It all depends on the state of play at the end of the May meeting. David