From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Mar 14 17:36:23 2012 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 0262C9DB112; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:36:22 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org 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 7D0CE3569A4 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:36:21 +0100 (CET) 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]:55465) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1S7rBV-0004vE-Pw (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:36:21 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1S7rBV-0004fv-0F (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:36:21 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 14 Mar 2012 16:36:21 +0000 Date: 14 Mar 2012 16:36:21 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4643) Part 2 of the standard Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120314153112.E454E3569A3@www.open-std.org> References: <20120313200407.EBAB39DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314115650.BE9429DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314122844.9A5959DB118@www.open-std.org> <20120314153112.E454E3569A3@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 Mar 14 2012, David Muxworthy wrote: >On 14 Mar 2012, Bill Long wrote: > >> I agree with Nick's comment that the focus of John's task was to >> determine whether additional intrinsics should be considered for Part 1. > > If you say so. My understanding was that the whole thrust of the > discussion was to find a reason to withdraw part 2, so that's what went > into the minutes and resolutions. Given the relative priorities of > current projects and given the SC22 decision made since the Garching > meeting, WG5 could put this one on the back burner. The thrust, yes, but not the whole of it. All right, this was a hobby- horse of mine, but we did agree to consider adding new intrinsics if that made the withdrawal significantly less difficult for any users of part 2. If John has done the work, we should consider his experience, and either put a minor work item on the back burner, or say definitely that no action is needed and kill the matter dead. Regards, Nick Maclaren.