(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4548) AW: [ukfortran] Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS

[Bader, Reinhold]

> 
> 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
> >impression.
> 
> 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.

Agreed.

> 
> 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.

This would also be my preference.

> 
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Regards
Reinhold