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

[Jim Xia]

> 
> 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.


I agree with Dave's position.  I think WG5 needs time to collect feedback 
from the field as to coarray applications before rushing into new feature 
development.  Also WG5 needs to wait for most compiler vendors to support 
and gather experience with coarrays before committing itself to more 
features.  Coarrays, as it is in F08, is not a mature language feature and 
needs more additions.  But WG5 needs time to get the additions right. 
Simply starting with N1858 is a wrong choice to me.

Cheers,

Jim Xia

Compiler Testing
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave,
Markham, On, L6G 1C7
905-413-3444
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20110930/7c353fa8/attachment.html>