From jwagener@trc.amoco.com Mon Aug 24 21:28:50 1992 Received: from noc.msc.edu by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA11398; Mon, 24 Aug 92 21:28:50 +0200 Received: from uc.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324)) id AA10803; Mon, 24 Aug 92 14:28:54 -0500 Received: from [129.230.11.2] by uc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0z(901212)) id AA13470; Mon, 24 Aug 92 14:28:54 -0500 Received: from trc.amoco.com (apctrc.trc.amoco.com) by netserv2 (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA29762; Mon, 24 Aug 92 14:28:30 CDT Received: from crmac1 by trc.amoco.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07632; Mon, 24 Aug 92 14:28:49 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 14:28:49 CDT Message-Id: <9208241928.AA07632@trc.amoco.com> From: Jerrold L. Wagener To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: a quick report on things in the mill X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 This is just a brief note to let you know what I have been up to recently. The following papers will be in the next X3J3 premeeting distribution: 92-179 Index to Selected X3 Documents [the standard screening] 92-180 Interpretation Processing [revision/update of 92-027] 92-181 X3J3 Organization and Major Activities 92-182 X3J3 Letter Ballot on Defect Management (S20) Items 92-183 Object-Oriented Extensions to Pascal (and Fortran) 92-184 Letter to Ken Kennedy, HPFF 92-185 Letter to Bruce Leasure, X3H5 92-186 Letter to Michael Hannah, POSIX 92-187 Letter to Bill Rinehuls, re need for SD-3 [with copy to JP Emard] 92-188 Proposed SD-3 for the 1995-96 Revision 92-189 Revised SD-1, Fortran Reference Model [cleaned up 92-177] 92-190 VDM-SL: an option for describing standard Fortran 92-180 is finished and, pending a final review by Andrew, will soon be distributed by email. 92-181 is something I have been thing about/working on for several weeks now and is about ready for email distribution and discussion. It is a significant reorganization of the X3J3 subgroups, to address the activities needed for the 1995-96 revision (on which we have to get cracking) as well as the interpretations. I will be proposing subgroup assignments in this document and then asking for your suggestions for different assignments, etc. 92-182 will be the letter ballot, as per our discussions in Bellevue, and will be distributed as soon as the updated S20 is ready. 92-183 is (primarily) the draft technical report on this topic from X3J9. It is almost 70 pages long, so I will not send it to Linda but will bring copies to the Nov X3J3 meeting. I will send Linda the two-page cover memo, which provides the relevant references and some personal observations. The latter derive from my reasonably careful skimming of the Pascal report, at about the same time that I was preparing for the talk I'm supposed to give at Supercomputing'92 on - are you ready for this? - object-oriented programming in Fortran 90. Given the recent OOP items on the email network, I'll send these two pages out in the next day or so for your enjoyment (?) and disembowelment. 92-184 follows up the related discussion at Bellevue. It's finished and sent. 92-185 will be the first step in setting up the liaison with X3H5, and will be sent as soon as the X3H5 project is approved. 92-186 will be the first step in setting up the liaison with P1003.9, and will be sent as soon as I hear a bit more from them (or someone). 92-187 is has the subject "X3J3 Report and New SD-3 Proposal" and begins the process of getting "I" project approval for the 1995-96 revision. This letter is finished and sent. 92-188 is finished (at least the first draft) and sent with 92-187. It's submittal date is 31 Aug 92, and the project title is "Fortran 9x". (I know - that's not a very imaginative title - but...) 92-190 describes a new standard for formal (and presumably more precise and consistent) description of programming languages. I thought the editorial committee might like to look it over. (Except for the covering memo, I'll probably bring copies for this item also, so as not to overload the premeeting distribution.) A couple of times in the above discussion I've mentioned that I will be bringing copies rather than asking them to be included in the premeeting distribution. This is in the spirit of another idea for streamlining things, which is to limit any premeeting items to, say, 10 pages. This policy could also be applied to items the host copies. Documents larger than 10 pages could be sent separately by the submitter, brought to the meeting, or made available from an FTP server. What do you think of such as policy? Should we implement it? Regards. Jerry