(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4544) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS

[Bill Long]

My recollection was a bit less severe, though perhaps ending at the same 
point.  My understanding is that any feature that goes into the final TS 
needs to have justification included in the proposal, including features 
currently in N1858.   Of course, there has already been some amount of 
work on those features, so they would be likely suspects, though perhaps 
in modified form given subsequent experience.   Some could be scrapped, 
and others added.

I think an important question that needs to be decided is whether the 
goal of the TS is to include only those features that are already in 
demand (from users)  or that users through (having failed to carefully 
read f2008) were already standardized, leaving more general expansion to 
the next revision, or whether the TS should be a comprehensive extension 
of coarrays that would unlikely be modified in the next standard.   I 
would argue that the current TS draft is somewhere between these tow 
options.   Going with the minimal TS would allow for quicker completion 
and sooner start on f201x.  The larger version would possibly result in 
better long-term integration of the feature.  At this point, my personal 
preference is for the minimal approach.

Cheers,
Bill


On 9/30/11 6:39 AM, David Muxworthy wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 11:37, John Reid wrote:
>
>> Would anyone else like to comment? I will be talking about this at the
>> BCS Fortran Group AGM tomorrow and hope to solicit some comments to
>> add.
>
>
> and on 28 Sep 2011, at 12:10, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
>
>> I have rechecked the WG5 Garching minutes and, while we did not
>> formally agree to Reinhold's point (2), I recall there being a
>> consensus that it was a necessary step within J3.
>
>
> As author of the minutes and resolutions, I have to admit that they
> are pretty minimal.  However my recollection of the discussion at the
> WG5 meeting was that N1858 was to be shredded, annihilated, trashed,
> 100% forgotten about and that we would start again from scratch by
> first asking anew for user requirements, then producing an Objectives
> and Rationale document and only thirdly specifying syntax and
> semantics.  I was surprised then at the BCS Fortran Group AGM when the
> discussion seemed to imply that the coarray TS would essentially be
> N1858 with variations.
>
> Perhaps others at the meeting could confirm or contradict my
> impression.
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101