From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Sun Jan 31 12:25:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 29E31C178E6; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:25:22 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90764C178E4 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:25:19 +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-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:49832) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1NbXva-0000YP-P2 (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:25:18 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1NbXva-0007nv-O2 (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:25:18 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 31 Jan 2010 11:25:18 +0000 Date: 31 Jan 2010 11:25:18 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Something arising from the 10-106 interps Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100131024554.BE901C178DC@www2.open-std.org> References: <20100131024554.BE901C178DC@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I notice that several of these interpretations are concerned with features that are obsolescent or (formally or informally) deprecated, like EQUIVALENCE or assumed length function results. If the proposal to design a portable subset is accepted, this would help with steering programmers away from that sort of coding. Certainly, any well-designed portable subset should need less interpretation, which cannot be bad. Incidentally, OpenMP makes a complete mess of EQUIVALENCE - I have been writing a course, and the only simple description is "Don't go there". Not that using EQUIVALENCE is a good idea, anyway! Regards, Nick Maclaren.