From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Sep 30 14:55:02 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 3B10C3568D7; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25213568D5 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:55:01 +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]:46627) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1R9ccG-0002oH-Ek (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:55:00 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1R9ccG-0003kP-IF (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:55:00 +0100 Received: from [131.111.10.32] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 30 Sep 2011 13:55:00 +0100 Date: 30 Sep 2011 13:55:00 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: David Muxworthy Cc: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4544) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110930113900.C09F63568CA@www.open-std.org> References: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> <20110930113900.C09F63568CA@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 30 2011, David Muxworthy wrote: > >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. My recollection is that was definitely favoured by some of the people, but opposed by others, and the consensus was that it might be used as input but should not be regarded as a basis. My understanding of the consensus was the first stage should be to ask for user input (now done), and the second to produce an Objectives and Requirements document, which would then be circulated to WG5 by Email for comments and informal consensus. Only then would the detailed design be started. Regards, Nick Maclaren.