From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Feb 20 12:40:55 2015 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 1833F3586ED; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:40:55 +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 B2424358354 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:40:51 +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]:39120) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1YOlww-00015J-pn (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:40:50 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1YOlwv-00085Q-Vu (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:40:50 +0000 Received: from [131.111.56.53] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 20 Feb 2015 11:40:49 +0000 Date: 20 Feb 2015 11:40:49 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John Reid Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5446) Response to TS ballot Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20150219231019.EF7E83570D2@www.open-std.org> References: <20150219231019.EF7E83570D2@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 Feb 19 2015, John Reid wrote: >> Nick Maclaren wrote > No, for the reasons given in N2038, N2013 and other votes. I need to > reiterate that neither response in N2039 even addresses my comments. I > believe that incorporating the TS into the main standard will cause > serious harm to Fortran, because the (semantic) difficulties cannot be > resolved (let alone specified unambiguously) in the time available. > Indeed, it is not clear even that they ARE soluble, because this TS is > specifying a feature that is beyond the state of the art, and has been > for half a century. I would be prepared to change my vote to abstain if > the decision to incorporate it were reversed. > > Response > It is our belief that agreeing to delay to a later revision of the > Fortran standard would lead to several "no" votes. Failure to > standardize a resilience capability before compilers implement F2015 > would lead to vendors implementing incompatible schemes, hurting the > goal of code portability. Whether or not the second statement is true, and it is extremely unclear whether it is, it is not a response to my objections. I am asserting that the task is infeasible, for the reasons I gave. Regards, Nick Maclaren.