From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Dec 12 10:14:46 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 DDEDE3585D7; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:14:45 +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 C54013582A5 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:14:40 +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]:35365) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1XzMJ6-0004ZJ-qx (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:14:40 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1XzMJ6-0005mX-BX (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:14:40 +0000 Received: from [80.189.87.246] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 12 Dec 2014 09:14:40 +0000 Date: 12 Dec 2014 09:14:40 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5398) (j3.2006) Straw vote on draft DTS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20141212004416.40B62358762@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><20141211204955.62B6D358705@www.open-std.org> <60091BBC-B90A-4BEB-86BC-591E708C0AA1@cray.com> <20141212004416.40B62358762@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 12 2014, Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> 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 > > Bill Long replies: <<< Except that Van left out the words coming after > "without change" : "unless experience in the implementation and use of > this feature identifies errors that need to be corrected". > >There is more than ample flexibility to "fix" any actual problems during >integration into F2015. > > There is sufficient (*not* "more than ample"!) flexibility. But the > schedule will be blown out of the water if we are going to wait for > experience in the implementation and use of the feature. As I have said before, I strongly disagree, and these are areas where I think that I have rather more experience and knowledge of the 'state of the art' than most people. The two elephants in the room are: A data and consistency specification. It is absolutely clear from the responses I have received that different people in WG5 are holding at least THREE incompatible assumptions about the model, and far too many people are still thinking serially. I am VERY doubtful that even this aspect can be resolved within the schedule, given the lack of progress so far. A semantic specification of error recovery. As I have never seen this done, I can only provide a lower bound on its difficulty. I know that it can't be done properly, but I don't know if it would be possible to produce a more-or-less adequate indication of intent and guidelines for programming. But I know that it is beyond my ability to produce something both deliverable and usable, even if there were no time limit. Regards, Nick Maclaren.