From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Feb 1 16:22:13 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 9EB4E9DB187; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:22:13 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-qt1-f169.google.com (mail-qt1-f169.google.com [209.85.160.169]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CEE358F61 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:22:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt1-f169.google.com with SMTP id s4so17235271qtx.6 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 07:22:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stevelionel.com; s=google; h=subject:from:to:content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WdDyZayqG5XBX8GQV0b4lRCc34N8bgtr0KE8ZWKzgA4=; b=AYqY9ceiE5BcUt4jZFhz3g1jtqxWhaY/jv0UkqFac03IXfR8bvmZKlTx8W6+JsjGeo lTr1pOdfSXbQMCT3O3l7BhfuaHOuTf6C5ZOdFrJiTt3VCw08L+hf4ETjD8rUKtePJBFS 1XXwaGy4ON02DJ3sdUQSghGZGHIz6mS5MeE80= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=subject:from:to:content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=WdDyZayqG5XBX8GQV0b4lRCc34N8bgtr0KE8ZWKzgA4=; b=vQuAPcPlzzYDQhq55rKIY0UvufHlveQqNm+jnJwNhVDId+/rmOs4v0tCN7lfqcULpd 4OxFXyt2CYPpbdFPB1XVsnLs/PZZmJkORIh5LRhAiyD1NTyfwPIC8cXMtY2LixRDyQYc UXgq6qkQulhJQRgrKAN/9UjS63DaGDLejO5/DiP4Er7/K2/S/OgmLwDYKyJ5C5Bj5FQn Y6uLgkyoiO9HOsYRKVfKUCOzVZKsSS0iKyhniMHoUH+em0bzAhW/NYQ/c/Ran4Da1P9J kvlTEiYhBwyMAP/IgyJildsSG7Sa29/P30+Hb2GXKTDKjudNQUdBhNRXdLdmEkKNxXW4 J/Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKU1ZBlkvcjio16+WSyOQMAR90i5qEB10suPlpoCKEAFToxuWidF 8CLxJEH8ZLioPjU2oTdWYdeiFKhdXACJ/gdPXDI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+xqiNRt8l/LIHKEfsCaO2eKYRGOF7I63K5XC+MFbENg10eSOkkXGnSdABK/P8+JbILY3Ty9w== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5912:0:b0:3b9:bf32:f8be with SMTP id 18-20020ac85912000000b003b9bf32f8bemr1350609qty.23.1675264931602; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 07:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2606:4700:110:8231:faba:1326:adc3:a5f9? ([2a09:bac1:76c0:1410::6a:33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y77-20020a376450000000b0071c535f3ff3sm8076999qkb.6.2023.02.01.07.22.10 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Feb 2023 07:22:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------h6iYMa507xLDRtLYn0JyIUie" Message-ID: <46887373-14d4-edf3-3b6c-eb4b7fc614ea@stevelionel.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:22:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/110.0 Content-Language: en-US To: WG5 List From: Steve Lionel Subject: F2023 DIS ballot results and comments Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------h6iYMa507xLDRtLYn0JyIUie Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all! The ballot for the F2023 DIS has ended, with 12 out of 12 P-members voting approval. There are numerous comments, the majority of them editorial or minor technical; some of these already have J3 papers about them. You can find the collated comments at 23-112.pdf (j3-fortran.org) We will need papers at J3 m229 addressing the comments, though I don't think we need them for things such as "you used the wrong font". It would be great if subgroup heads would coordinate responses and get papers written before the meeting, especially as it's a short week. What we often do is have one paper per subgroup that covers multiple comments related to that subgroup. I think this will be a straightforward task, as many of the comments have already been discussed and have suggested edits. On a related note, many of you are aware that, in the past, ISO has asked us to remove line numbers from the final document submitted. Now they are saying that while they would prefer neither paragraph nor line numbers, we can use either or both if we want - we just have to get SC22 to request permission to do so and SC22 has said we can do whatever we think best here and they'll handle the paperwork. The argument against line numbers is that, especially when the document is translated, they can change. Paragraph numbers don't change within a revision, but do between revisions (though ISO seems to think otherwise.) Note that whatever decision we make here, it does not affect the J3 "Interpretation document" which will have both paragraph and line numbers. Does anyone have strong opinions about whether we should put line numbers back in the official standard? I'd like to keep the paragraph numbers and don't care about line numbers. Malcolm says it's a one or two line change in his macros. If you have comments on this, please respond to the WG5 list - those on the J3 list should not just reply to the email. Thanks again for all your efforts - we're almost there! Steve --------------h6iYMa507xLDRtLYn0JyIUie Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello all!

The ballot for the F2023 DIS has ended, with 12 out of 12 P-members voting approval. There are numerous comments, the majority of them editorial or minor technical; some of these already have J3 papers about them. You can find the collated comments at 23-112.pdf (j3-fortran.org)

We will need papers at J3 m229 addressing the comments, though I don't think we need them for things such as "you used the wrong font". It would be great if subgroup heads would coordinate responses and get papers written before the meeting, especially as it's a short week. What we often do is have one paper per subgroup that covers multiple comments related to that subgroup. I think this will be a straightforward task, as many of the comments have already been discussed and have suggested edits.

On a related note, many of you are aware that, in the past, ISO has asked us to remove line numbers from the final document submitted. Now they are saying that while they would prefer neither paragraph nor line numbers, we can use either or both if we want - we just have to get SC22 to request permission to do so and SC22 has said we can do whatever we think best here and they'll handle the paperwork.

The argument against line numbers is that, especially when the document is translated, they can change. Paragraph numbers don't change within a revision, but do between revisions (though ISO seems to think otherwise.) Note that whatever decision we make here, it does not affect the J3 "Interpretation document" which will have both paragraph and line numbers. Does anyone have strong opinions about whether we should put line numbers back in the official standard? I'd like to keep the paragraph numbers and don't care about line numbers. Malcolm says it's a one or two line change in his macros. If you have comments on this, please respond to the WG5 list - those on the J3 list should not just reply to the email.

Thanks again for all your efforts - we're almost there!

Steve

--------------h6iYMa507xLDRtLYn0JyIUie--