From Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk Mon Mar 3 14:39:41 1997 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk (oxmail4.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.33]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08374 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:39:29 +0100 Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk by oxmail4 with SMTP (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:38:43 +0000 Received: from [163.1.85.1] (com1.etrc.ox.ac.uk [163.1.85.1]) by ermine.ox.ac.uk (1.1/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA01607 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:38:35 GMT X-Sender: mellis@ermine.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:39:08 +0000 To: sc22wg5 From: Miles Ellis Subject: URGENT: Attention Heads of National Delegations!!! IMPORTANT CONSULTATIVE COUNTRY LETTER BALLOT ============================================ During the recent Las Vegas meeting the question of the proposed Part 3 of the Fortran Standard (Conditional Compilation) was discussed during a special evening session. Unfortunately the Editor (David Epstein) was unable to be present, due to a personal emergency. The meeting considered both the current draft of the proposed CD (WG5 N1243) and an alternative proposal submitted by Larry Rolison based on the cpp/fpp approach (WG5 N1247). The question of whether this project should be based on existing (C language) practice or a more Fortran-like approach has been a contentious issue since the project was first taken on after the Tokyo meeting two years ago. However, on every occasion when the direction has been put to the vote a majority has favoured the Fortran-like approach. This meeting was no exception, and a straw vote on the preferred direction resulted in the following figures: Continue with the current CoCo approach: 14 Adopt a new fpp/cpp approach : 8 Undecided: 9 However, this somewhat lukewarm support for the current direction was emphasised by a second vote on whether the project should be continued or abandoned altogether: Continue with the project: 8 Abandon the project: 12 Undecided: 10 It seemed very clear, therefore, that there is a considerable body of opinion that does not believe that this project should be continued (certainly in its present form), although there is certainly no majority for any change of direction. When WG5 discussed this issue in full plenary, thereore, it felt uncertain of how to proceed and decided to request me to carry out a consultative ballot of member bodies to decide whether to continue with this project or whether to request SC22 to cancel the project. The relevant resolution, LV8, is as follows: That WG5, taking regard of the inconclusive nature of the discussions and votes on the subject of conditional compilation at the meeting, instructs its Convenor to convey the sense of the meeting to the project editor, David Epstein, to summarize the relevant issues for the benefit of members not present at the meeting and to carry out a letter ballot of WG5 member bodies to confirm the continuation of the project. The meeting also passed a further resolution requesting the Editor to prepare a document for the Vienna meeting in a form ready for submission for its first CD ballot, but only if the consultative ballot confirms that the project is to proceed. That resolution, LV9, is as follows: That WG5, if appropriate following the letter ballot described in resolution LV8, instructs the project editor, David Epstein, to modify WG5-N1243 taking regard of the comments of the conditional compilation development body described in WG5- N1266 and other comments received from members of WG5, and to forward a copy of a revised draft CD to the WG5 Convenor no later than June 16, 1997, in a form suitable for submission for balloting by SC22, in order that it can be thoroughly reviewed by WG5 before its meeting in Vienna on July 21-25, 1997. If the ballot should confirm WG5's intention to produce a Part 3 of the Fortran Standard on the subject of Conditional Compilation in Fortran, then it is anticipated that a draft CD will be submitted for Registration and Approval ballots later this year. If. on the other hand, the ballot should indicate that there is no consensus for continuing the project then I shall advise the editor to undertake no further work until after a final decision is made. That decision will be made at the Vienna meeting on a formal country vote (with any member bodies unable to be present being encouraged to submit an absentee ballot, or to appoint another country to act as their proxy). If that vote should confirm the wish to terminate the project then I shall request SC22 to do so at its Plenary in Ottawa in August. This consultative ballot will end on Friday 4th April. Would Heads of Delegations (or their representatives) please respond by email by this date. If, for reasons of national procedures, it is impossible to arrive at a country position by this date then please contact me as soon as possible. A paper copy is being sent to the four countries who have requested paper distribution of documents. Miles Ellis Convenor: WG5 -------------------------- Ballot Question -------------------------- ----- We support the continuation of project JTC 1.22.02.03 | YES | "Conditional Compilation in Fortran" |-----| | NO | ----- (signed) ........................................ on behalf of (country) .......................... (date) .......................................... Reply to Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk NO LATER THAN 4th April 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Miles Ellis Director: Educational Technology Resources Centre University of Oxford, 37 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JF, ENGLAND Telephone: +44 1865 270528 Fax: +44 1865 270527 Email: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk WWW: http://www.etrc.ox.ac.uk/Personal/Miles/Miles_Ellis.html