(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3611) Preparing for the Tokyo meeting

[John Wallin]

Hi all,

I haven't chimed on this, but I have to agree with Bill.  We rehashed this for two days at the last the WG5 meeting, and reached a compromise that was suggested by Alex.  Specifically, that the coarray's would be reduced in scope AND they would be included in part I.   We (J3) reduced the scope, as per the agreement.  From the agreement and the discussions, I certainly expected this discussion was over and that this decision had already been made.

-John Wallin

From: Bill Long <longb at cray.com>
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3611) Preparing for the Tokyo meeting

> 
> 
> John Reid wrote:
> > As I see it, the most difficult problems that we need to face in 
> Tokyo are:
> >
> > 1. Whether coarrays should be integrated in Part 1.
> >
> > 2. Whether to allow coarrays to be volatile.
> >
> > I have a suggestion re 1, which no-one seems to like (does this 
> mean it might be 
> > suitable as a compromise?!): 
> 
> I reject the idea that additional compromise is needed.  We've 
> voted 
> over and over on this topic and made a massive compromise at the 
> last 
> WG5 meeting to get consensus.  I've read through the new UK papers, 
> and 
> there is no new technical information there to suggest need for 
> substantial changes.   There will always be a few who will never 
> give up 
> their argument that coarrays should not be in the standard.  They 
> need 
> to accept that they have lost and discontinue their rants.
> 
> 
> > follow the precedent of Fortran 77 where there was 
> > a full language and a subset language. 
> 
> You are right that no-one will like this idea.  It's a bad idea. It 
> goes 
> directly against the idea of "standard" (singular).  It sends a 
> message 
> that we "didn't really mean the coarray stuff", and is no different 
> from 
> the Part 2 proposal that was rejected.  For implementors, this 
> would 
> offer no meaningful advantage over the option of supporting just 1 
> image, which is already allowed with the current, unified text. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill
> 
> > One caught on and everyone talking of 
> > Fortran 77 now means that one. It was done with facing pages 
> specifying the two 
> > levels, which would not be practical for Fortran 2008. I think we 
> would need to 
> > concatenate the two, which should not a problem in these days of 
> electronic 
> > publication. Which of the two is developed further (or neither or 
> both) would 
> > depend on their success in the field. If it is just one, that 
> will be what 
> > future generations will regard as Fortran 2008.
> >
> > My suggestion re 2 is in N1752.
> >
> > See you in Tokyo.
> >
> > John.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > J3 mailing list
> > J3 at j3-fortran.org
> > http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
> >   
> 
> -- 
> Bill Long                                   longb at 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
> 
>            
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>