From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Sep 30 15:03:34 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 6D2A23568E1; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:03:34 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2E03568D7 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:03:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8UCdH8G000557 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:39:17 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p8UD3Q96167330 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:03:26 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p8UD34dG022345 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:03:05 -0300 Received: from d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.105]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p8UD31xC022066; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:03:01 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20110930113900.C09F63568CA@www.open-std.org> References: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> <20110930113900.C09F63568CA@www.open-std.org> To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org, sc22wg5@open-std.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4544) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS X-KeepSent: A17CED89:DB6CB1CE-8525791B:0046C8B9; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 Message-ID: From: Jim Xia Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:03:00 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML04/25/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 09/30/2011 09:03:01, Serialize complete at 09/30/2011 09:03:01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0047B1308525791B_=" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0047B1308525791B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > 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. I agree with Dave's position. I think WG5 needs time to collect feedback from the field as to coarray applications before rushing into new feature development. Also WG5 needs to wait for most compiler vendors to support and gather experience with coarrays before committing itself to more features. Coarrays, as it is in F08, is not a mature language feature and needs more additions. But WG5 needs time to get the additions right. Simply starting with N1858 is a wrong choice to me. Cheers, Jim Xia Compiler Testing IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7 905-413-3444 --=_alternative 0047B1308525791B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" >
> 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.

I agree with Dave's position.  I think WG5 needs time to collect feedback from the field as to coarray applications before rushing into new feature development.  Also WG5 needs to wait for most compiler vendors to support and gather experience with coarrays before committing itself to more features.  Coarrays, as it is in F08, is not a mature language feature and needs more additions.  But WG5 needs time to get the additions right.  Simply starting with N1858 is a wrong choice to me.

Cheers,

Jim Xia

Compiler Testing
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave,
Markham, On, L6G 1C7
905-413-3444
 --=_alternative 0047B1308525791B_=--