From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Dec 9 19:10:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 083F0CA343D; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:10:25 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389D7C178D6 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:10:23 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:54524) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1LA72N-00080a-08 (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:10:23 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1LA72N-0007Wo-0u (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:10:23 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 09 Dec 2008 18:10:23 +0000 Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:10:23 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3790) (j3.2006) Ballot on the technical content of the TR Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081209171008.72868CA3439@www2.open-std.org> References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081208024650.76234C4596C@www2.open-std.org> <20081208154207.B50ABC178E0@www2.open-std.org> <493DDCA3.3050104@sun.com> <20081209044540.E9F0AC178E5@www2.open-std.org> <493E0084.1020206@sun.com> <20081209063036.65499CA343D@www2.open-std.org> <20081209114032.1E486C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081209171008.72868CA3439@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 9 2008, Bill Long wrote: > >And how is that relevant to the TR? There seems to be continued >confusion on this issue, so I'll repeat it one more time (and hopefully >only once more): The vast bulk of the TR has nothing to do with MPI and >was never intended to have anything to do with MPI. The original mandate >for the TR, passed by WG5, is not about MPI. Unless and until you put something in that document stating what requirements it is intended to address, you will continue to cause such confusion. At the VERY LEAST, you should contain a reference to another document that says what your mandate is and why it was set up. I remain completely in the dark about why you are attempting what you are trying to do, which makes it very hard to comment effectively. And please note that I asked for the reasons and not a summary of your approach, which I can reverse engineer from N1761. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679