From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Sep 28 13:30:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 6B0F93568EB; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:30:27 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1179 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:30:27 CEST Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105583568CC for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:30:26 +0200 (CEST) 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]:44026) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1R8s2G-0001uo-ST (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:10:44 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1R8s2G-00042Q-QO (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:10:44 +0100 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 28 Sep 2011 12:10:44 +0100 Date: 28 Sep 2011 12:10:44 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4542) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> References: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Sep 28 2011, John Reid wrote: > > In N1868, I asked for comments on the contents of the TS on further > coarray features by 23 September. I have only received four, see the > draft paper attached. Would anyone else like to comment? I will be > talking about this at the BCS Fortran Group AGM tomorrow and hope to > solicit some comments to add. Sorry about that. NO, with comments. I have not had time to think about this area, but I agree with Reinhold Bader and Robert Numrich, for similar reasons to them. I have rechecked the WG5 Garching minutes and, while we did not formally agree to Reinhold's point (2), I recall there being a consensus that it was a necessary step within J3. From my experience of MPI and OpenMP, Robert has pointed out the two most difficult parts of N1858 to specify semantically, unless we both have missed something subtle. We need to go cautiously, and watch out for the semantics. Specifying the syntax is the easy bit. Regards, Nick Maclaren.