John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk> · 04/12/2010 05:28 AM

WG5,

The ballot has closed and here is my draft summary of the result. I will
wait a 

couple of days before putting the final version on the server. Please tell
me of 

any errors or omissions.

As agreed in Las Vegas Resolution LV6, the subcommittee of Malcolm, Dan,
Van, I 

will review the comments, Malcolm will make any further edits needed and
the 

subcommitee will check these before submission.

John.

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1825-2

                 Result of letter
ballot on N1814

Key for the Result line:

Y Yes.

C Yes, but I recommend the following changes. 

N No, for the following reasons.

A Abstain.

Y Bader

Y Chivers

C Cohen

N Corbett

Y Donev

Y Gorelik 

C Long

Y Maclaren

Y Moene

Y Morgan

C Muxworthy

Y Nagle

Y Martin

Y Reid

Y Sleightholme

C Snyder

A Takata

Y Whitlock

Y Xia

Totals: Y 13, C 4, N 1, A 1

Recommended changes

Cohen 1

  Introduction, page xiv, "Programs and procedures:" bullet
point,

  after "A null pointer" insert "or unallocated allocatable".

Reason:

  Missing feature from the feature list.

Note:

  I strongly recommend this change.

Cohen 2

  10.10.4 "List-directed output", paragraph 13 (page 266),

  after "Except for"

  insert "new records created by explicit formatting within a
defined output

procedure or by"

Reason:

  This paragraph should be identical to the one for namelist formatting
at

10.11.4.3p5; the latter was changed by interp F03/068 which had too narrow
a

scope and the inconsistency was not spotted at that time.

Cohen 3

 Introduction, page xii, bullet-point "Execution control:",

 append new sentence to paragraph:

   "The ERROR STOP statement initiates error termination."

 Reason:

   Even though the difference between STOP and ERROR STOP might only

 be interesting in the parallel environment, it is not obviously a

 synchronization construct so not covered by "Parallel execution:".

Long 1

In Note 8.45 (page 194 in 8.5.6 LOCK and UNLOCK statements) replace the

first comment in the example code:

   ! Lock to manage the work queue

with

   ! Lock on each image to manage its work queue

[This suggested change arose when someone familiar with distributed

locks (so-called MCS Locks) thought the coarray variable queue_lock

represented a single, distributed lock, rather than a separate lock on

each image.  The proposed replacement wording makes it more clear
that

LOCK_TYPE does not have some magical global variable property.]

Muxworthy 1  

There are bad page breaks at the bottom of pages 52, 380 and 565.

Muxworthy 2  

Similarly on pages 151, 486, 492, 522 but of much lower, possibly

     negligible, priority.

Muxworthy 3  

Table 2.1, split between pages 31 and 32, is not well presented; it

     was not so split in F95 or F03.  This could be resolved
by additional

     white space on pages 30 and 31 or by interchanging subclauses
2.3.2

     and 2.3.3.

Muxworthy 4  

The diagram of the plasma module would be improved if it were not

     split over two pages (504 & 505).  Also it should
now use continuous

     lines rather than ASCII characters.

Snyder 1

In 13.7.136p3, p380, insert "a" before "default" in
the description of

the SIZE argument.

Snyder 2

In 13.7.136p3, p380, insert a full stop after "N" in the description
of

the GET argument.

Reasons for NO votes and comments with abstentions

Corbett

I vote no because of the problems with the proposed standard that

were found during March 2010, namely, the conflicts between the

expanded definition of the term "not present" in Section 12.5.2.12

and the specifications of some of the intrinsic functions, and the

problem with generic resolution using the POINTER attribute to

disambiguate references.  I am concerned that approving the

standard and then resolving the problems through the interpretation

process will favor solutions that involve small changes to the

standard over the best overall solution.

I shall change my vote from no to yes, perhaps with comments, if a

note is added explaining the problems and making it clear that a

possibly significant change to the approved standard is expected. 

Takata

Although I share Bob's concern, such a note suggested by him would be

inappropriate, even if it is not illegal.

_______________________________________________

J3 mailing list

J3@j3-fortran.org

http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

From:	John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
To:	WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Date:	04/12/2010 05:28 AM
Subject:	(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4245) Result of WG5 letter ballot on N1814