From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Apr 7 20:40:02 2013 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 CCF12356C28; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 20:40:02 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1574 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:40:01 CEST Received: from moene.org (moene.org [82.95.66.103]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28934356995 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 20:40:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by moene.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UOu62-0006cM-IH; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: <5161B756.30609@moene.org> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:13:42 +0200 From: Toon Moene Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 CC: John Reid , WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4924) WG5 ballot on first draft TS 18508, Additional Parallel Features in Fortran References: <20130308120458.DEF90356DB5@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20130308120458.DEF90356DB5@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 03/08/2013 01:06 PM, John Reid wrote: > WG5, > > In the strategic plan for the coarray TS agreed at Markham (N1925) there > appears: > > Draft TS constructed by J3 2013-02 > WG5 ballot on draft TS 2013-03 > > I am pleased to say that we are on schedule. > > The draft TS is N1967 and the ballot is N1968. Both are attached. There > are background notes in N1968 that you should read before reading N1967 > itself. > > The ballot ends on 8 April. According to N1968.txt, that's 2013040808 UTC :-) I have to vote no. In addition to all the arguments to not pass this TS is that I reconsidered my example A2. Clause 6 notes. "Example 2: Producer consumer program." As far as I can see, it is correct with TYPE(LOCAL_EVENT_TYPE) :: EVENT[*] As I tried very hard to come up with an example to show the need for (non_local) EVENT_TYPE, I question whether we need two event types. Please give TS 18508 another round at the meeting in Delft. Kind regards, -- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news