From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Sep 3 00:08:16 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h82M8G2A094351 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:08:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h82M86Cp094345 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:08:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from longb@cray.com) Received: from relayb.mw.cray.com (relayb.us.cray.com [192.168.252.110]) by mail1.cray.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/gw-1.2) with ESMTP id h82M7w4G028196; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:07:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from saffron.us.cray.com (saffron.mw.cray.com [172.31.27.14]) by relayb.mw.cray.com (8.12.9/8.12.6/hub-1.2) with ESMTP id h82M7vlb002844; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:07:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cray.com (mh-dhcp-172-31-16-101 [172.31.16.101]) by saffron.us.cray.com (8.8.8/Cray-server-1.6-nhsmod011017) with ESMTP id RAA730069; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:07:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F55169E.90607@cray.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:15:58 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: longb@cray.com Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Maine CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2955) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD References: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> <200309022048.h82KmN99093632@dkuug.dk> In-Reply-To: <200309022048.h82KmN99093632@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk I think that going through the interp process, as opposed to fixing known defects in the draft now, will work. However, I'd like to have the wording of the interp settled now. The compiler implementation process begins long before the standard is published (and has already begun for this version), and it would be a good idea for the implementations to be working from the same interpretation. Should we start processing f2003 interps at the November J3 meeting? Cheers, Bill Richard Maine wrote: >Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov writes: > > > > In correspondence before meeting 165, Bill Long noticed that there's no > > prohibition against deallocating an allocatable , or changing > > the pointer association status of a pointer , inside a SELECT > > TYPE or ASSOCIATE construct (8.1.4-5). > > > > I realize it's late -- maybe too late -- to do anything, but if we do > > nothing now, we're almost certain to need to process an interpretation > > request later. > >My personal opinion is that we are late enough that an interp request >is a more appropriate venue. Getting the technical content of this >right merits the full attention that an interp request gets, rather >then the limited participation of informal email discussion. This >has technical content. It isn't overly difficult technical content, >but it is enough that I think it requires the due dilligence that it >won't get via this route. The "vetting" subgroup isn't enough to >judge technical content. > >Definitely IMO. > >P.S. Now that you mention it, I recall the email, but I don't recall >it getting formally raised at mtg165. Sending an email to the list >can be a good way to elicit some preliminary discussion (which there >was som eof), but it isn't a substitute for an actual meeting paper. > > > -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120