From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Apr 27 05:39:49 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 7F3F8C3BA14; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:39:49 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B160BC3BA13 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:39:45 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=Marucomputer) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1O6bdZ-0007wY-BS for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:39:05 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20100426160954.E1C6EC3BA19@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100426160954.E1C6EC3BA19@www2.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4261) wg5 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:39:54 +0900 Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > Here is a draft revision of my summary of the new features of F2008. Would > anyone like to comment before I put it on the WG5 site? Your example of something exit can do that cannot be expressed in F2003 could be written as a single statement in F90. That's not very convincing. You could just tone down the claims about expressiveness. (Actually, I generally find the advertising to be a bit overstated and unnecessary, but it's your paper not mine.) 5.5 example is invalid except in a module or main program. 6.2 explanation of when one had to explicitly put the bounds in an array allocation in F2003 is confusing. One always had to explicitly put them, whether one wanted to copy another array's bounds or not. 10.2 is wrongly explained. 10.6 is missing the unallocated allocatable case. The example in 10.8 isn't what we were trying to achieve, and illustrates some oversights in the constraints (an interp request will be forthcoming). A PRNG function would be a better example. I disagree with Van's comment on 10.9 (because sharing data doesn't require the data to be stored in module variables except when they have the SAVE attribute, in which case it won't be thread-safe anyway). Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.