From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Dec 8 19:52:40 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 95DB8C3BB09; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:52:40 +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 01991C3BA3D for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:52:39 +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]:40732) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1PQP82-0000tn-sQ (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:52:38 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1PQP82-0002I4-Rj (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:52:38 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 08 Dec 2010 18:52:38 +0000 Date: 08 Dec 2010 18:52:38 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Aleksandar Donev Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4393) (j3.2006) Result of informal ballot on draft TR Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101208140030.D91B1C178E3@www2.open-std.org> References: <20101207184031.B5908C3BA20@www2.open-std.org> <20101207204342.68DF7C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20101208140030.D91B1C178E3@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 8 2010, Aleksandar Donev 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). I suggest that you look at it with a less prejudiced eye. Not merely does it NOT say or propose that, it starts by explaining why I was forced into that conclusion. As I posted before, I started by trying to draft wording to constrain use enough to ensure both implementability and usability. After a day's work, I gave up. I couldn't. As I have also posted before, now there is a complete draft, I shall try to produce actual code and demonstrate how nasty the problem is. >That said, just vote No, if that is what you want. In the end, >everyone's work will be wasted, including yours. I do not think that you have realised the seriousness of the semantic inconsistencies. Regards, Nick Maclaren.