From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Aug 18 14:32:19 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 28C8935696A; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:32:19 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 714 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:32:18 CEST 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 BFBAC356905 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:32:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 803004687/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.250.146/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.250.146 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAEWIL1BYaPqS/2dsb2JhbAANN71mAQEBAwF+CwtGV4ggpjWTYo8BgjxgA4sxj2d/jCuBYA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,790,1336345200"; d="scan'208";a="803004687" Received: from 88-104-250-146.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.3]) ([88.104.250.146]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2012 13:20:06 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4723) WG5 letter ballot on N1929 From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20120817095648.607253568FA@www.open-std.org> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:20:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <92ADD95A-06BE-4DC7-9609-9AB7F6486EA5@bcs.org.uk> References: <20120817095648.607253568FA@www.open-std.org> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > Please answer the following question "Is N1929 ready for forwarding to = WG23=20 > as the Fortran Annex to TR 24772?" in one of these ways.=20 >=20 > 1) Yes. > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.=20 > 3) No, for the following reasons. > 4) Abstain. I vote No. The reason for voting No is that TR24772 is currently out for SC22 ballot with deadline 2012-09-10. Hence the next revision will probably not be compiled by WG23 until May or June 2013. This gives WG5 the best part of a year to polish the document. It would be premature to submit N1929. Were the timescales not inappropriate my vote would have been Ywc with the following comments: Fortran.1 Should also list corrigendum 1 and part 2. (That is assuming that ITTF get round to publishing the corrigendum soon.) Fortran.1 (or elsewhere) Should give a list of earlier standards, in the style used in F2008 Annex B.1, since Fortran 77 and 90 are mentioned but never defined. Fortran.2.1 More should be said about pre-F90 history. F77 is clearly still in widespread, if possibly sparse, active use and F77 programs appear to be commonplace as evidenced by comp.lang.fortran and comp-fortran-90. Redundant facilities as far back as F66 continue to be available in many compilers. This situation should be described to give context to what follows. There is some possible text in my email of May 11 to the vul-annex list. Fortran.2.2 I am slightly confused by the heading "The following definitions are taken from the Fortran standard". These are not necessarily word-for-word copies of the text in section 1.3 of the standard and are a small subset of the definitions in 1.3. What is the criterion for inclusion? To be really picky, "assumed shape" and "assumed size" should have hyphens to be consistent with subsequent text. The definition "deleted feature: a feature that existed in Fortran 77 but has been removed from later versions of the standard" is not strictly correct. Here is a suggested replacement: deleted feature: a feature that existed in an earlier version of the standard but was subsequently deleted. Certain redundant features in Fortran 66, Fortran 77 and Fortran 90 have been deleted. David