From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Jun 29 11:14:56 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 003DFC178E5; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from gloin.rl.ac.uk (gloin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.201]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EF5C178DA for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:52 +0200 (CEST) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by gloin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o5T9EdBJ028314; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:14:39 +0100 Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADF956255; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:14:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4C29B97F.6040906@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:14:39 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc10 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4276) Systematic reviews of Part 3 and the TR on enhanced modules References: <20100628173612.00A19C178E5@www2.open-std.org> <4C28E8D7.2040409@cray.com> In-Reply-To: <4C28E8D7.2040409@cray.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.399 : ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 130.246.135.201 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Bill Long wrote: > > > John Reid wrote: >> WG5, >> >> Here are the results of the two systematic reviews that have just >> completed. They have both been confirmed (7-2-23 for Part 3 and 9-1-22 >> for the TR). The surprise for me was re Part 3, but keeping it a bit >> longer seems harmless. >> > > Confirming the submodule TR just in time for it to become irrelevant. > > Is there any mechanism for including a statement of support by the WG or > development body for a particular position when this voting occurs? I > suspect many of the 'confirm' votes were inertial. If the argument had > been made that the facility is included in the Fortran 2008 standard, > and that a separate description of the facility was, at best, a > distraction, the vote might have been different. I will raise this when I report to SC22 in the autumn. For the TR, I think we should wait until F2008 is formally published and then I will request that the TR be withdrawn. For Part 3, after a decent interval which I will agree with SC22, I will request that this be withdrawn. An explicit request for withdrawal is different from a vote for renewal. >> Two of the files are rtf, which I do not normally put on the web site, >> but I can read them easily under Linux with Open Office. Is anyone >> unhappy with putting these two up? >> > > Added OS: The TextEdit application that comes with the Mac OS can > display the .rtf files. The content of the files is certainly > interesting, so I vote to put them up. Badly worded question on my part - I am definitely going to put them up. My question is whether people are content with putting them up in rtf. Having had an objection, I have asked the SC22 secretary if she can send me pdf instead. Cheers, John.