From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Sun Dec 28 21:37:38 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 46DBBC178DA; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:37:38 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.100.54]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A66DC178D6 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:37:37 +0100 (CET) X-Trace: 121009001/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.69.51.26/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.69.51.26 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApSDAIdxV0lPRTMa/2dsb2JhbACCLgSEaIhnrHhYjm6GRA Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Ballot on the technical content of the TR X-IP-Spam-Verdict: SUSPECTEDSPAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,292,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="121009001" Received: from 79-69-51-26.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [79.69.51.26]) ([79.69.51.26]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 28 Dec 2008 20:37:35 +0000 Message-ID: <4957E38E.70405@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:37:34 +0000 From: John Reid Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Please answer the following question "Do you approve of the technical content of N1761?" in one or more of these ways (it is acceptable to choose both 2 and 3). 1) Yes. 2) Yes, with comments. 3) Yes, except with OPTIONAL dummy arguments in interoperable interfaces removed, with comments. 4) No, with comments (comments required). 5) Abstain. My vote is 4) No, with comments. My reason for the NO vote is that I would like to see support for MPI non-blocking procedure calls. My major comment concerns timing. In my report to SC22 (N1737), I said 'It is envisaged that the first draft of the TR on Further Interoperability of Fortran with C will be forwarded by March 2009'. I think we need to abandon this aim. It was envisaged that the detailed work on the TR be done in the slack time while the standard was out for vote, not in the busy time after the vote is in and the responses agreed. We need to concentrate on the preparation of the Final CD in the early months of 2009. My minor comments (using line numbers in N1761) follow. 45-47. The concepts of assumed type and assumed rank are useful within Fortran too, as the final example illustrates. 102-103. Change 'If ... assumed-size array, the' to 'The'. [As far as I can see, this restriction is not needed.] 104-107. The sentence should be a separate paragraph and preferably moved to another section since it applies to more than assumed-type variables. 344-346. What does it mean if the specifiers have the same value? 414. Change to 'using the mechanism of the Fortran ALLOCATE statement. On' 451. Change to 'information for one dimension of an array section. It is defined in the file' ^^^^^^^ 466. Change to 'modified by assignment and that change later effected in the' ^ 470. Surely it is necessary to be able to call CFI_update_cdesc for an allocatable object. 470-473. Why would the programmer want to change such a base address? Why not disallow it? 519. What units are used for the size? 520-521. Change to 'generic interface allows the size to be given by alternative kinds of integers'. [I don't know what the "-i8" compiler switch problem is.] 573. Why is y of rank 0? 574. y(:,1) is contiguous so no copy is ever needed. 575. Why is this illegal, rather than rank 0? 628+. More examples needed, showing the use of descriptors.