From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Dec 7 21:43:42 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 3A844C3BA21; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:43:42 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC29C178E3 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:43:40 +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]:51173) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1PQ4Nv-0003QP-rn (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:43:39 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1PQ4Nv-0000wU-LI (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:43:39 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 07 Dec 2010 20:43:39 +0000 Date: 07 Dec 2010 20:43:39 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4389) Result of informal ballot on draft TR Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101207184031.B5908C3BA20@www2.open-std.org> References: <20101207184031.B5908C3BA20@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 7 2010, John Reid wrote: > > Here is my draft paper with the results of the ballot on the current > draft of TR 29113. > > I have grouped the responses by topic and included some of the email > remarks. Please will you check that you are happy with everything > associated with your name and that I have not left anything out? It's fair, but misleading about my position, for no fault of yours. I apologise for not responding - I was just too tied up with other work and the real issues I want to raise need some very hard thinking and I have just not had the time. The main one is 10-235r1, which I do NOT feel has been properly considered, and is as problematic as the TYPE(*) issue and even more pervasive. Unfortunately, explaining why (beyond what is in 10-235r1, which clearly wasn't adequate) is non-trivial. I also have drafted a specific example of why the specification of CFI_cdesc_to_bounds cannot work. We discussed that in one meeting, and the problem is still unresolved. Regards, Nick.