From martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov Fri May 21 08:28:31 1993
Received: from ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA23395
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Sat, 22 May 1993 00:28:28 +0200
Received: by ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.0)
	id AA27569; Fri, 21 May 93 15:28:31 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 May 93 15:28:31 PDT
From: martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (Jeanne Martin)
Message-Id: <9305212228.AA27569@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Letter Ballot Results
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


To:      WG5
From:    Jeanne Martin, Convenor
Subject: Results of the Informal Letter Ballot on Varying String Issues

Ballots have been received from the following:

  Countries:
    Germany
    Netherlands
    US

  Individuals:
    Adams
    Bezirtzoglou
    Bierman
    Buckley
    Cohen
    Delves
    Griffiths
    Hirchert
    Leonard
    Martin
    Mattoon
    Morgan
    Muxworthy
    Oglesby
    Reid
    Schonauer
    Schonfelder
    Shen
    Shiers
    Tanasescu
    Wada
    Walter
    Wagener
    Weber

If you voted and your name (or country) does not appear on this list, please
let me know and I will make the necessary corrections.  The comments returned
with the ballots will appear in the next WG5 distribution.  The ballots will
be sent to Lawrie Schonfelder.  The results are indicated below as country 
vote-individual vote.  Abstentions are not recorded.


			 
			 WG5 Informal Letter Ballot
                                     on
                          ISO Varying String Issues
	           (resulting from the recent SC22 CD Ballot)


References: N876 Ballot results from the SC22 Ballot to move to DIS
	    N877 Email correspondence re document form
	    N878 Project Editor's response to ballot comments on CD

 1. There is strong opposition to publishing the Varying String standard as
    an amendment to ISO/IEC 1539:1991 (See N876).  There are two other choices 
    (See N877):
     
        - publish as a separate standard with a different number
	- publish as the second part of a multi-part standard with the number
	  1539-2.  When 1539 is revised, it will become 1539-1.

    Which do you prefer?

    1-7   separate standard
    2-18  second part of a multi-part standard


 2. Should the pointer inefficiency in the example module caused in part by the
    pointer intialization defect of Fortran 90, be alleviated by adding INIT
    and FREE procedures (as described in N876) to the standard?

    1-8   yes (add INIT and FREE)
    2-16  no


 3. Do you favor an early extension to Fortran to provide for pointer
    initialization in some form?

    3-21  yes
    0-2   no


 4. Should generic names be chosen for the I/O procedures?

    2-24  yes
    0-1   no

    Which do you prefer?

    0-14  GET, PUT, PUT_LINE
    0-4   GET, PUT, PUT_EOR
    0-3   INPUT, OUTPUT, OUTPUT_EOR
    2-4   other (specify) ___________(see comments)_______________________


 5. Should the basic input procedure be simplified such that it always reads
    to the end of record; that is, the only terminator is EOR?

    0-15  yes
    1-8   no

 6. Should a SPLIT procedure as outlined in N878 be added to the string
    manipulation facilities?

    1-15  yes
    1-7   no


 7. Should IOSTAT in the input procedure return a positive value (indicating an
    error) when an error is detected other than a data transfer error, e.g.
    during allocation of storage for the string?

    2-20  yes
    1-3   no


 8. Should a variant of VAR_STR with a length argument be included?  (See
    arguments in N876 and N878.)

    1-4   yes
    1-18  no


 9. What name should the type conversion procedures have?  (See arguments in
    N876 and N878.)

    2-19  CHAR  
    1-2   FIX_STR


10. ISO/IEC 1539:1991 currently does not permit a single generic name to apply
    to both functions and subroutines.  As described in N876 and N878, it would
    be useful if REMOVE, INSERT, and REPLACE could be invoked either way. 
    Do you favor an early lifting of this restriction?

    1-14  yes
    2-11  no


11. Should the document be revised such that descriptions are modeled after
    those in section 13 of ISO/IEC 1539:1991?  See N878 for an example
    description of INDEX.  Note that this would be a major editorial change.

    1-11  yes
    2-10  no