From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Dec 8 15:00:30 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 987ECC3BA3D; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:00:30 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp.cims.nyu.edu (SMTP.CIMS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.100]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAA8C178E3 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:00:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from donev.cims.nyu.edu (donev.cims.nyu.edu [128.122.80.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cims.nyu.edu (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB8E0ReW002786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:00:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CFF8F7B.1050302@courant.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:00:27 -0500 From: Aleksandar Donev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4390) [ukfortran] Result of informal ballot on draft TR References: <20101207184031.B5908C3BA20@www2.open-std.org> <20101207204342.68DF7C178E3@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20101207204342.68DF7C178E3@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 12/07/10 15:43, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > 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 do not find an r1 of this paper on the J3 server? I took a quick look at 235. It has some good points, but I must say that any paper that begins with "we need to start from scratch", i.e., undo everything else others have done, and implement your favorite approach, does not get sympathy from me regardless of technical content (which has some good points but also a lot of exaggerations). There are things I would like to change in the proposal, from scratch (e.g., separate type/kind from the rank descriptors). I have not put them down as comments because we voted many times, straw votes, took opinions from people, tried to arrive at a consensus. A committee cannot function with everyone just drumming their own drum, every meeting, to the same tune. That said, just vote No, if that is what you want. In the end, everyone's work will be wasted, including yours. Best, Aleks -- Aleksandar Donev, Assistant Professor of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Office: 909 Warren Weaver Hall, New York University E-mail: donev@courant.nyu.edu Phone: (212) 992-7315; Fax: (212) 995-4121 Mailing address: 251 Mercer St, New York, NY 10012 Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev