From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Sep 4 11:20:16 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h849KGgA012897 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:20:16 +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 inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h849KBCp012891 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:20:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h849KHo04568 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:20:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10134 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:29:14 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3F570688.6000000@rl.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:31:52 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2956) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD References: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> <200309022048.h82KmN99093632@dkuug.dk> <200309022208.h82M8GR5094362@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Bill Long wrote: > 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. As Convener, let me comment that this is an FCD ballot, not a DIS ballot. J3 could work on this at its next meeting and propose an edit in the US ballot. Minor technical changes are allowed at this stage; nothing of the magnitude of what we did last time, of course, but this one looks like just the sort of thing that the ballot is intended to catch. Please don't come up with tons of such edits - that would put us back to doing another FCD - but my understanding is that a few would be OK. Cheers, John.