(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5449) [ukfortran] Response to TS ballot

N.M. Maclaren nmm1
Fri Feb 20 06:40:49 EST 2015

On Feb 19 2015, John Reid wrote:
>> Nick Maclaren wrote
> No, for the reasons given in N2038, N2013 and other votes.  I need to
> reiterate that neither response in N2039 even addresses my comments.  I
> believe that incorporating the TS into the main standard will cause
> serious harm to Fortran, because the (semantic) difficulties cannot be
> resolved (let alone specified unambiguously) in the time available.
> Indeed, it is not clear even that they ARE soluble, because this TS is
> specifying a feature that is beyond the state of the art, and has been
> for half a century.  I would be prepared to change my vote to abstain if
> the decision to incorporate it were reversed.
> Response
> It is our belief that agreeing to delay to a later revision of the
> Fortran standard would lead to several "no" votes.  Failure to
> standardize a resilience capability before compilers implement F2015
> would lead to vendors implementing incompatible schemes, hurting the
> goal of code portability.

Whether or not the second statement is true, and it is extremely
unclear whether it is, it is not a response to my objections.  I am
asserting that the task is infeasible, for the reasons I gave.

Nick Maclaren.

More information about the J3 mailing list