(j3.2006) [Re: Spreadsheet from meeting 167]

Dan Nagle dannagle
Sat Nov 3 15:13:14 EDT 2012


On Nov 3, 2012, at 10:21 , David Muxworthy <d.muxworthy at bcs.org.uk> wrote:

> As I understand it the decision at Garching was based, without any
> great enthusiasm, on the belief that collaborating with WG23 was
> better than ignoring them.  I am appalled to hear that J3 has spent
> significant time on the Fortran annex.  The annex is essentially a
> political document which few will ever use for technical work.  The
> drafting could certainly be done by the WG5 subgroup by email.

I believe it is a misstatement to say that J3 spent significant amounts
of time on the annex for 24772.  Two people worked on it part-time,
two more gave the draft a reading (between meetings IIRC) and contributed
their comments.  One member is forbidden by company policy from participating
at all.  All others ignored the annex completely.  Indeed, most of the words
were, as planned, developed by email.  Such efforts as were spent at 199
were spent tweaking the draft, that is, word smithing.  For example,
"compiler" was changed to "processor" in many places.  No one complained that
they diverted time from anything else to work on it.

Whether the current 24772 has any normative text is quite beside the point
of any motive WG5 ever expressed towards the document.  In any case,
the affect on compiler suppliers so far is exactly zero, and
the wildest imagination can conjure only very minor effects on suppliers
under any foreseeable scenario.  The worst case I can bring to mind
is that a compiler might be asked to warn of something not now done.
The affect on the standard so far is exactly zero.  J3 listened politely
to a daily announcement in plenary that there was a new draft on the server.
The announcement delayed FIDS by 10 or 20 seconds.


Dan Nagle

More information about the J3 mailing list