From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jun 2 18:14:42 2017 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 6DB8D3570BE; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp-out-6.tiscali.co.uk (smtp-out-6.tiscali.co.uk [62.24.135.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9F03570B4 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:14:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([212.139.93.115]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id GpDjda6Z33OBfGpDjdluo3; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:14:39 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [212.139.93.115] Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5868) [ukfortran] N2126 To: sc22wg5@open-std.org References: <20170602160304.88B633570BE@www.open-std.org> From: John Reid Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 17:14:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170602160304.88B633570BE@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfBUFxuP1K9P1P8QMK0tJhNFuYNj0GFSjiBn+AIrbNZ8E3SndxmSPyWZ5rDY+4yxm6Go/0666ttylHZj1QbDBtdOKdlRo6D8WZwQOdKbNsDqOn31Oi6F/ g5OnrUfbyfwKvKGr1to8RYWEiKtPMsA++Qvq2O9lfeq9iyPcS3d02axfirilb+ytAwHHh1gyft1uDlZS1gFaI7VcFPNI3gbll+k= Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> To: WG5 >> From: John Reid >> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 22:11:42 +0100 >> >> I have just posted this document: >> >> N2126 A Strategy for Reckoning the Content of the Next Revision (Nagle) > > Hi John, > > What is the status of this document, i.e. > is this Dan's personal opinion? Mostly, yes, but I think he has asked around for opinions. > Will this form a basis for WG5 discussion at Garching? Yes. It is relevant to item 10 on the agenda: "Start planning for the further revision of the Fortran standard." > Or will WG5 vote be held on it? > > Or is it an ivitation to comment? > If so, I have some comments. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. Commenting would be good. Cheers, John.