From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Dec 11 21:49:55 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 40A573585D2; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:49:55 +0100 (CET) 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 F2502358295 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:49:53 +0100 (CET) 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]:55284) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1XzAgJ-0003QI-si (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:49:51 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1XzAgJ-0005AV-SR (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:49:51 +0000 Received: from [146.199.92.227] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 11 Dec 2014 20:49:51 +0000 Date: 11 Dec 2014 20:49:51 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: WG5 List Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5395) (j3.2006) Straw vote on draft DTS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20141211194904.B2BAC3581C3@www.open-std.org> References: <20141108182113.6EC5E3581CE@www.open-std.org> <20141207195158.20EE0358488@www.open-std.org> <0EF5DA3D-6652-44A7-8859-70A05437D64B@rouson.net> <20141211194904.B2BAC3581C3@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 Dec 11 2014, Van Snyder wrote: > >If the provision in the Introduction that "the semantics and syntax >specified by this Technical Specification be included in the next >revision of ISO/IEC 1539-1 without change" were removed, or the caveat >"changes are needed to achieve proper integration" were weakened to >allow whatever substantive technical changes are necessary to address >unforeseen problems, I would vote to approve the TS. That was one of my comments on a previous draft. I lost. >Otherwise, I fear it has the potential to require an avalanch of >interps. Oh, I can assure you that isn't the problem - it has the potential to kill Fortran except for extreme HPC use on specialist HPC systems. If it includes a feature that is attractive but not practically usable, a LOT of users will use it, find it doesn't work, and say that Fortran doesn't work. Regards, Nick Maclaren.