From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Jun 21 18:33:22 2014 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 E89D23586F9; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:33:21 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCA93586E0 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:33:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:48925) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1WyOEB-000645-se (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:33:19 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1WyOEB-0003kg-SG (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:33:19 +0100 Received: from [66.237.29.114] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 21 Jun 2014 17:33:19 +0100 Date: 21 Jun 2014 17:33:19 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 List Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5283) Alessandro's slides Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140621160532.5C89E3586EB@www.open-std.org> References: <20140619225451.0033F358638@www.open-std.org> <001601cf8c7d$d0ef0640$72cd12c0$%chivers@chiversandbryan.co.uk> <20140620132709.BBEF7357222@www.open-std.org> <20140621160532.5C89E3586EB@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Jun 21 2014, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > >Bill, Reinhold and I had an, er, robust debate by Email over 14-158, >and I drafted a paper during the flight on the progress issue. My point >is that this is a problem as deceptively simple and actually fiendishly >tricky as the data consistency one, and we need a proper debate (and >probably decision) at the WG5 level over what Fortran can reasonably >assume of an implementation. Uploaded as 14-199. Please note that I am not grinding an axe over what decision we should take, but only of the point that we should think the matter through and not do something without consciously accepting the consequences. There was a debate on the gfortran mailing list over whether libcaf could/should use a daemon thread, which was left for future consideration (unless there has been a recent decision). It's that sort of issue. Regards, Nick.