From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Mar 31 05:47:09 2011 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 537BFC178E5; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:47:09 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048F9C178E4 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:47:07 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from source ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZP5OkaDX0kivztVvkJZhdF3nDk2LN6f@postini.com; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:47:08 PDT Received: from cfasa-vpn-192-168-233-147in.us.cray.com (192.168.233.147) by cfexcas02.americas.cray.com (172.30.74.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:47:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4D93F94D.1080409@cray.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:47:25 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4409) WG informal ballot References: <20110304095000.610DEC3BA01@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20110304095000.610DEC3BA01@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 Please answer the following question "Is N1845 ready for forwarding to SC22 as the PDTR?" in one of these ways. 1) Yes. 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. 3) No, for the following reasons. 4) Abstain. 2) Yes, with changes. I've been accumulating the various (and many) edits proposed to the TR as part of this informal Ballot. They seem to fall into these categories: 1) Typos (spelling, punctuation, etc.) 2) Non-controversial corrections to wrong statements or C program example syntax. 3) Wording changes that improve clarity, but do not make technical changes. 4) Reformatting the presentation of the function descriptions in 5.2.5. 5) Minor technical changes that address oversights in the current draft. 6) Technical changes on which there is not consensus. 7) Proposals for edits that are based on some misunderstanding and are unlikely to be accepted. My preference would be to create an updated draft based on the edits for categories 1-5, have a subgroup review the result as a PDTR candidate, and leave the comparatively small number of issues in category 6 for responses to the PDTR ballot and resolution at the June meeting. Cheers, Bill -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101