From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Sep 30 13:39:00 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 426F73568D7; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.53]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98547356743 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:38:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 677127343/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.244.249/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.244.249 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkACAFqphU5YaPT5/2dsb2JhbAAMNZldkSQBAQEBAgE4AkQLC0ZXiBS3BoY/YQSYb4wr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,466,1312153200"; d="scan'208";a="677127343" Received: from 88-104-244-249.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.244.249]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2011 12:38:55 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> References: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <41104390-C556-4005-A34E-A0E0386C4938@bcs.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Muxworthy Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4542) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:39:24 +0100 To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 28 Sep 2011, at 11:37, John Reid wrote: > 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. and on 28 Sep 2011, at 12:10, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > 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. As author of the minutes and resolutions, I have to admit that they are pretty minimal. However my recollection of the discussion at the WG5 meeting was that N1858 was to be shredded, annihilated, trashed, 100% forgotten about and that we would start again from scratch by first asking anew for user requirements, then producing an Objectives and Rationale document and only thirdly specifying syntax and semantics. I was surprised then at the BCS Fortran Group AGM when the discussion seemed to imply that the coarray TS would essentially be N1858 with variations. Perhaps others at the meeting could confirm or contradict my impression. David