From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jul 25 16:01:24 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 DC9D7357125; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:01:23 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.54]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DC2356FDB for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:01:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 1046045378/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.250.231/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.250.231 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: ApMBACwv8VFYaPrn/2dsb2JhbAANTcFpgSyDGAEBAQMBfgsLRlc0h2+nAZJCkAQWgnxuA51vjlI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,743,1367967600"; d="scan'208";a="1046045378" Received: from 88-104-250-231.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.250.231]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2013 15:01:04 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.5028) WG5 vote on draft TS on further coarray features From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20130710091604.2E25F35700C@www.open-std.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:01:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <043C56CF-DA13-4464-8F33-F3239CEDDA6B@bcs.org.uk> References: <20130710091604.2E25F35700C@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 N1983 ready for forwarding to > SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways. > > 1) Yes. > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. > 3) No, for the following reasons. > 4) Abstain. I acknowledge the work done by the HPC subgroup but my vote is 'no' on a matter of principle. The TR/TS system in Fortran was intended to try out new facilities in parallel with the main language, analogous to beta-testing, and to incorporate them into the standard when they had proved stable across platforms. The proposals for the current TS do not remotely meet these criteria. Although the material has been around for several years, the requirements were being revised only last month and the specification is still being developed. Edits to the specification from no fewer than 18 papers (15 of them 'r' papers) were approved in June. Van has already raised one technical point and over thirty editorial glitches. Clearly the document is not ready to forward to SC22. I very much agree with his comment: It looks like much of this stuff has had only a few moments' reflection before being proposed to be cast in concrete. Sure, Cray might have done some of it already, and their customers might use it successfully, but that doesn't mean it's the best solution, or even a good one. I'd rather see more discussion, introspection, consensus, and experience, and less controversy, before we rush to publish a definitive solution as a Technical Specification that is almost promised to end up as part of the standard. Well said, Van! ---------------------- David