From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Dec 9 19:18:53 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 159F9CA343D; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:18:53 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CF0C178D6 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:18:51 +0100 (CET) X-Attachments: None Received: from cyrus2.llnl.gov ([128.15.97.105]) by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 10:18:50 -0800 From: Aleksandar Donev Organization: LLNL To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3786) [ukfortran] Ballot on the technical content of the TR User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081209063036.65499CA343D@www2.open-std.org> <20081209114032.1E486C178D6@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20081209114032.1E486C178D6@www2.open-std.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-UID: 6253 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:18:50 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200812091018.50765.donev1@llnl.gov> Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Tuesday 09 December 2008 03:40, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > N1761 matches existing practice only if your implementation matches > N1761, and we have had at least two vendors say that it doesn't match > theirs. You have provided no evidence that it matches the majority of > implementations. We have gone over a list of vendors, their descriptors, and argument passing conventions, to the best of our knowledge, in Interop subrgroup, when you were NOT there. Sorry, I understand it is frustrating to have other's work that you dislike being sent to you for vote, but believe me, it is more frustrating for someone to come to us 2 years after the fact and tell us that our design, which was done to match the original WG5 mandate, and tell us: a) I want completely new functionality b) I can do it soo much better Just do it then and send a complete TR draft to us, please. > The vast bulk of N1761 doesn't help even existing MPI, let alone help > MPI to provide a real Fortran 2003 interface. Craig was the official Fortran representative on the MPI-3 group, and has even attended some of their meetings. I don't think anyone is really authorized to comment on the whole "community" and give "representative" proposals. We try to do our best, that's all. Aleks