From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Oct 31 06:20:22 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 CD1663589AA; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 06:20:22 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 395 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 06:20:21 CET Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BD80356CB2 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 06:20:20 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 88943 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2017 14:13:38 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2017 14:13:38 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "'Steve Lionel'" , "'WG5'" References: <20171024173005.992B3356DB8@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20171024173005.992B3356DB8@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5988) Let's start over on the straw ballot Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:13:39 +0900 Message-ID: <000d01d35207$036ead30$0a4c0790$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01D35252.735B3730" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQILGKBfwzxbjUhYLUWnJfru09acK6KN2t5A Content-Language: en-gb Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01D35252.735B3730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Do you approve making the technical change to add a requirement that the = variable specified for STAT=3D in MOVE_ALLOC and the ATOMIC_xxx = intrinsics have a minimum decimal range of 4? See J3 paper 17-219 for = details. Yes/No/Abstain =20 Yes. (Only MOVE_ALLOC is a change from the previous version, this is = making it consistent.) =20 Do you approve disallowing a coarray or coindexed variable on the left = side of an intrinsic assignment statement if it is an unallocated = allocatable variable? This is an incompatibility with Fortran 2008 which = did not disallow this. See J3 paper 17-228 for details. = Yes/No/Abstain =20 Yes. (I am convinced that this was an inadvertent feature.) =20 Do you approve making the technical change to disallow coarrays of = TEAM_TYPE? See J3 papers 17-202r1 and 17-250r2 for details. = Yes/No/Abstain =20 Abstain. (I understand the reasons for a vendor to prefer the new = design, but it is very late in the process for such a change.) =20 Do you approve, after making changes passed at J3 meeting 214, creating = a Draft International Standard (DIS) and sending it for ballot? This = would meet the current development schedule. Yes/No/Abstain =20 Yes. =20 Do you approve changing the informal name of the in-development Fortran = standard from "Fortran 2015" to "Fortran 2018"? See J3 paper 17-193r1 = for details. Yes/No/Abstain =20 Yes. (We=E2=80=99ve kept on making significant technical changes, not = all of which are explainable as =E2=80=9Cintegration issues=E2=80=9D. = It=E2=80=99s time to use the same naming convention as everyone else.) =20 Cheers, --=20 =E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2= =80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6..Malcolm Cohen. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01D35252.735B3730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Do you approve making the technical change to add a = requirement that the variable specified for STAT=3D in MOVE_ALLOC and = the ATOMIC_xxx intrinsics have a minimum decimal range of 4? See J3 = paper 17-219 for = details.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yes/No/Abstain

Yes.=C2=A0 = (Only MOVE_ALLOC is a change from the previous version, this is making = it consistent.)

Do you approve disallowing a coarray or coindexed = variable on the left side of an intrinsic assignment statement if it is = an unallocated allocatable variable? This is an incompatibility with = Fortran 2008 which did not disallow this. See J3 paper 17-228 for = details.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yes/No/Abstain

Yes.=C2=A0 = (I am convinced that this was an inadvertent feature.)

Do you approve making the technical change to disallow = coarrays of TEAM_TYPE? See J3 papers 17-202r1 and 17-250r2 for = details.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Yes/No/Abstain

Abstain.=C2=A0 (I understand the reasons for a vendor = to prefer the new design, but it is very late in the process for such a = change.)

Do you approve, after making changes passed at J3 = meeting 214, creating a Draft International Standard (DIS) and sending = it for ballot? This would meet the current development = schedule.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= Yes/No/Abstain

Yes.

Do you approve changing the informal name of the = in-development Fortran standard from "Fortran 2015" to = "Fortran 2018"? See J3 paper 17-193r1 for details. = Yes/No/Abstain

Yes.=C2=A0 = (We=E2=80=99ve kept on making significant technical changes, not all of = which are explainable as =E2=80=9Cintegration issues=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 = It=E2=80=99s time to use the same naming convention as everyone = else.)

Cheers,

-- =

=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2= =80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6..Malcolm = Cohen.

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01D35252.735B3730--