From takata@edogawa-u.ac.jp Sat Oct 4 00:17:10 1997 Received: from mail.edogawa-u.ac.jp (mail.edogawa-u.ac.jp [202.210.206.13]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28268 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:16:45 +0100 Received: from takata-n1 (TAKATA-N1.edogawa-u.ac.jp [202.208.215.249]) by mail.edogawa-u.ac.jp (8.7.3 Version 1.1 Build 566/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA00208 for ; Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:17:00 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <199710032317.IAA00208@mail.edogawa-u.ac.jp> X-Sender: takata@mail.edogawa-u.ac.jp X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.3-J (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:12:57 +0900 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk From: TAKATA Masayuki Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1453) Interoperability with C - ballot results Miles and others, I am explaining Japan's position to the interoperability TR, as I attended both the Vienna meeting and the recent Japanese SC22 meeting, at which I was the alternate for Minoru Tanaka, Chair of Japanese Fortran WG. Miles wrote: > I had thought that we had made a (difficult) decision in Vienna, but two of > the six countries (Finland and Japan) who voted for the resolution to ask > J3 to take over the work (as part of Fortran 2000) voted to approve the > PDTR - in both cases without any reservations - while two others either > abstained (Austria) or did not vote (Sweden). So we clearly need to > re-examine our Vienna decision, since it is directly contrary to the result > of the SC22 ballot. Japan voted for the PDTR approval, because the technical content of it was basically ok to proceed (as a TR draft, if it had been possible) and we wished that J3 will accept the document as technical basis. Japan hasn't changed the intent to support the resolution V4. That J3 cannot deal it as a TR would officially be a separate issue arisen after the Vienna resolutions, I think. We could discuss for adoption of Miles's option 2, and give up the TR. Japan will vote for it. I reported, at the Japanese SC22 meeting in which the decision was made for the TR ballot, that Japan should do so if such action takes place, and they agreed. I don't know any actual procedure needed for stopping an approved TR process, though I believe current situation (too many comments for the limited human resource and the tight schedule) is enough as the reason. I hope Japan is not just making things more difficult. For your convenience: > V4 Interoperability of Fortran and C > That WG5, anticipating considerable technical revision of the proposal on > Interoperability of Fortran and C as a result of comments in the SC22 ballot > on PDTR 15815, and in order to keep to the schedule for implementing > interoperability as a major requirement for Fortran 2000, requests the primary > development body to accept the responsibility for developing this requirement. Regards, Makki ---------------------- Takata, Masayuki (Mr.) Department of Applied Sociology, Edogawa University Komaki 474, Nagareyama, Chiba, 270-01 Japan fax: +81-471-54-2490 email: takata@edogawa-u.ac.jp