(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5065) J3 work plan

[Van Snyder]

Now that we have a work plan, will there be papers for the work at 202?

So far, it seems that 13-238r1 could be voted as specs and syntax for
US-04, 10-187r2 could be voted as specs, syntax, and edits for US-05,
and 13-218r1 could be voted as specs and edits (no syntax changes) for
US-12.  Unless Malcolm wants to tackle it, I could write edits based on
13-238r1.

The requirements for US-01, US-03, and US-08 are too nebulous from which
to write specs, let alone syntax or edits.  I hope the "champions" for
these proposals do something.

Will there be papers from the UK for the UK work items?

Concerning UK-10.2e, is the intent also to obsolesce using the specific
intrinsic names as actual arguments and procedure pointer targets?  That
would seem to make a lot of programs stop working, with no work around
other than to write wrappers.  Where they appear as function references,
one can use the generic name.  These could be converted to generic names
with a "sed" script.  But generic names cannot be actual arguments or
procedure pointer targets.  Maybe only the ones marked with a bullet in
13.6 ought to be obsolesced.  We could then take out "and not marked
with a bullet" in several places.

Concerning UK-10.1a (delete arithmetic IF), my colleagues who have
millions of lines of legacy code to maintain are concerned about the
amount of work this might impose on them.  They like to use "conform to
the standard" switches but fear their codes won't compile if they turn
on the switch, even if all vendors continue to offer arithmetic IF as a
"convenient extension."  Could we instead put in a prohibition against
the <expr> having a value that is an IEEE NaN, or maybe even "an error
occurs?"  They argue that arithmetic IF is far more pervasive in legacy
code than the other deleted features, which did not cause them much
grief.  They're not much concerned about shared DO termination
(UK-10.1b), since their style guides frowned upon that decades ago.
They wouldn't object to prohibiting DATA statements in the execution
part, since that was also frowned upon in their style guides.

-- 
Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.