From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Dec 13 18:45:55 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 AC70C3569E9; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:45:55 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-1-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.52]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB303568BD for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:45:54 +0100 (CET) X-Trace: 834494356/mk-filter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.240.37/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.240.37 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAJn3yVBYaPAl/2dsb2JhbAANOL8EgxEBAQEDAX4LC0ZXiCapXpQDjFeBGoJIYQObYY1j X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,275,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="834494356" Received: from 88-104-240-37.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.240.37]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2012 15:47:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Subject: Re: WG5 letter ballot on N1947 From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20121210121650.AB1553569E8@www.open-std.org> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:47:16 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20121210121650.AB1553569E8@www.open-std.org> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > Please answer the following question "Is N1947 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 Yes with comments. Editorial: In Fortran.1 add: ISO/IEC TS 29113:2012 Further interoperability of Fortran with C ISO/IEC 1539-2:2000 Fortran Part 2: Varying length character strings Also change "Corrigendum I" to "Corrigendum 1". In Fortran.5.2 "IEEE 754" should specify which version of that standard is used, and there should be a cross-reference to IEC 60559, as in the main part of TR 24772. Other references to "IEEE" (in 5.1 and 5.38) should be more precisely worded since the main part of TR 24772 and other annexes mention several different IEEE standards. General comment: I voted in favour of WG5 formally adopting this project in 2011 as I thought it politically beneficial that in an SC22 standard Fortran should be seen to be in the same league as Ada, C, Python, etc. However basically I agree with Van's description: "a frivolous bit of nonsense that ought to be in textbooks, not a nonnormative annex to an irrelevant international standard".[1] =20 I would have preferred the Fortran annex to have included more on history, to mention earlier standards and, given the apparent continuing use of Fortran 77, to explain a little more for example why common and equivalence were needed at one time and why it is now recommended that they be avoided. However it is not worth expending more resource on the document. Once any remaining corrections and clarifications have been made it should be sent to WG23 and the project closed down, at least until after the next revision of part 1. [1] BSI voted against the original vulnerabilities project proposal in 2005. The majority view on the committee was that language- independent standards in SC22 have been a waste of effort and have had little or no influence. David