From lrr@cray.com Mon Feb 3 21:50:12 1997 Received: from timbuk.cray.com (root@timbuk.cray.com [128.162.19.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02848 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:49:59 +0100 Received: from ironwood.cray.com (ironwood-fddi.cray.com [128.162.21.36]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.8.4/CRI-gate-8-2.11) with ESMTP id OAA18268; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:49:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from poplar409 (poplar409 [128.162.149.9]) by ironwood.cray.com (8.8.4/CRI-ccm_serv-8-2.8) with SMTP id OAA13076; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:49:08 -0600 (CST) From: Larry Rolison Received: by poplar409 (SMI-8.6/btd-b3) id OAA02233; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:49:50 -0600 Message-Id: <199702032049.OAA02233@poplar409> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1297) Informal Review of Source Processing Draft Standard To: hennecke@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:49:50 -0600 (CST) Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk In-Reply-To: <199702031859.TAA01279@dkuug.dk> from "Michael Hennecke" at Feb 3, 97 07:58:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24-CRI-b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > According to Larry Rolison: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Informal Ballot on N1247 (Draft Standard for Source Processing in Fortran) > > ____________ > > I believe that the current draft should supplant | YES | NO | > > the current "Fortran-like" model in all further | | | > > considerations of source processing ("conditional ------------ > > compilation") > > Given that question, there can be no answer. N1247 is a WG5 working document, > but not a "Draft Standard for Source Processing in Fortran" because WG5 > delegated that work to a development body, which delivered such a document > as N1243. Sorry for my inexact wording. I'd really hate for this to fall into a semantic discussion of the (possibly bad) wording I've chosen for the title of my informal vote email message. The wording of the question uses the term "draft", not "draft standard". I really meant the "current draft of the paper I'd written". Period. I don't care what it's exact title is or it's exact standing with any committee. I personally consider BOTH papers to still be in the discussion stage, else I would not have gone to this trouble. If I am wrong, and the "Fortran-like" version has gone beyond the discussion stage, then I will be told that (in the committee's usual no uncertain terms) in the night meeting next week. My sole objective here was to assist the US TAG's point of view and my point of view that there are still viable alternatives to the "Fortran-like" model that should be investigated. If I have misread the US TAG's point of view, then I once again apologize, but I really think the US TAG said that the "cpp-like" model had not been given sufficient consideration. I understand that we are only a single TAG and that I am only a single voice, but as of right now I also think that the "cpp-like" model needs to be given further consideration. My *sole* intent for this informal ballot is to get the issue some visibility, and to cause people to rethink their positions on source preprocessing. I wanted people to see my paper before the meeting so as to be prepared to discuss it at the night meetings next week. If the wording is inexact, please forgive that. I want the *ideas* and *models* discussed, not the title or exact wording of the question of this informal vote. I hope that by now I have beaten this to death. The singular question is (however it is worded): Should we go forward with the "cpp-like" model or the "Fortran-like" model? > > You may supplement your NO vote on the draft PDTR N1243 by your document > N1247 (which may help in the technical debate), but cannot claim that status > for your own document. What would happen if I'd issue a new Fortran 95 DIS > to "supplant" the *true* DIS issued by that projects's editor? > > > If NO, please provide details of what changes you wish to see made in order > > that the document will be suitable for substitution for the "Fortran-like" > > model. NOTE: I am NOT interested in NO votes based on either of > [snip] > > I would like to see this issue addressed (if not solved) within the > development body, rather than by "supplanting" the development done > by that body with an imitation of an "official informal" ballot on > a personal submission. > > > (signed) Michael Hennecke........................ > > (date) 1997/02/03.............................. > > Cheers, > Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Rolison lrr@cray.com Cray Research - A Silicon Graphics Company 655F Lone Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55121 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------