(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4546) [ukfortran] Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS

N.M. Maclaren nmm1
Fri Sep 30 08:55:00 EDT 2011

On Sep 30 2011, David Muxworthy wrote:
>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

My recollection is that was definitely favoured by some of the people,
but opposed by others, and the consensus was that it might be used
as input but should not be regarded as a basis.

My understanding of the consensus was the first stage should be to
ask for user input (now done), and the second to produce an Objectives
and Requirements document, which would then be circulated to WG5 by
Email for comments and informal consensus.  Only then would the
detailed design be started.

Nick Maclaren.

More information about the J3 mailing list