(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5399) [ukfortran] Straw vote on draft DTS

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Dec 12 2014, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> On Dec 11 2014, Van Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>> If the provision in the Introduction that "the semantics and syntax
>>> specified by this Technical Specification be included in the next
>>> revision of ISO/IEC 1539-1 without change" were removed, or the caveat
>
> Bill Long replies: <<< Except that Van left out the words coming after 
> "without change" : "unless experience in the implementation and use of 
> this feature identifies errors that need to be corrected".
>
>There is more than ample flexibility to "fix" any actual problems during 
>integration into F2015.
>
> There is sufficient (*not* "more than ample"!) flexibility. But the 
> schedule will be blown out of the water if we are going to wait for 
> experience in the implementation and use of the feature.

As I have said before, I strongly disagree, and these are areas where
I think that I have rather more experience and knowledge of the 'state
of the art' than most people.  The two elephants in the room are:

    A data and consistency specification.  It is absolutely clear from
the responses I have received that different people in WG5 are holding
at least THREE incompatible assumptions about the model, and far too
many people are still thinking serially.  I am VERY doubtful that even
this aspect can be resolved within the schedule, given the lack of
progress so far.

    A semantic specification of error recovery.  As I have never seen
this done, I can only provide a lower bound on its difficulty.  I know
that it can't be done properly, but I don't know if it would be possible
to produce a more-or-less adequate indication of intent and guidelines
for programming.  But I know that it is beyond my ability to produce
something both deliverable and usable, even if there were no time limit.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.