From Keith.Bierman@Eng.Sun.COM Tue Jul 29 19:17:03 1997 Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14084 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:17:01 +0200 Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id KAA25855; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:16:29 -0700 Received: from kindra.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) id KAA00484; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:16:26 -0700 Received: from chiba.eng.sun.com by kindra.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27515; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:16:23 -0700 Received: from chiba by chiba.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29615; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:16:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199707291716.KAA29615@chiba.eng.sun.com> To: "Loren Meissner" cc: "Craig Dedo" , "WG5 Mailing List" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1429) RE: WG5 Vienna Meeting - Any Developments? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:17:17 GMT." <199707261426.QAA02726@dkuug.dk> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:16:24 -0700 From: Keith Bierman ADT/QED Fortunately I read email after roadtrips backwards, so I didn't have to suffer with multiple queries about a state of a meeting while it was in progress ;> > The short answer (my personal view) is: Nothing very significant happened at > the Vienna meeting. Of course, you left before the final resolutions ... so you missed the formal resolutions ;> Of the N, I think two are significant import to J3 in the near term. *) C Interoperability is now (potentially) J3's task to do in whatever fashion it desires, as part of F2K. We'll still need to turn in a formal no vote on the TR, but we needn't slave too hard over the various reasons for the no. But we should set up a subgroup to actively design the feature "right". *) Interval arithmetic may be architected as part IV (or any N of the Standard). The UK delegation won in their bid to remove any hint that WG5 prefers it to be intrinsically part of part 1 of the multi-part standard. > The most important results were interpersonal interactions > that occurred outside the formal structure of the meeting. (Also, an For better or worse, that's always seemed to be case at wg5 meetings. > From: Craig Dedo > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 6:16 PM > To: WG5 Mailing List > Subject: (SC22WG5.1428) WG5 Vienna Meeting - Any Developments? > > I have heard nothing about any developments at this week's WG5 Why would you expect reports from a meeting in progress? Especially an ISO meeting where all formal actions take place on the last day *only*? > 1. Have there been any developments at the WG5 meeting? Yes. > 2. Specifically, are any of the recently approved Fortran 2000 features > in danger of being killed off? There was an effort to remove interval arithmetic. However, it got no further than loosing matters so it could be deployed as part N of the standard. No doubt, some fraction of the discussion will be repeated in Breckenridge. > 3. Anything not on the list that is likely to be added? No. > 4. Any new / revised mandates from SC22? Yes. > 5. What are the significant developments, if any, on each of the > features approved for Fortran 2000? WG5 doesn't do (isn't supposed to) technical work, so I can't parse the question.