(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5825) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot
John Reid
John.Reid
Wed Dec 7 05:28:40 EST 2016
Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> I am ok with the revised wording, however the document has at least one
> non-ASCII character, e.g. on line 51; this should be corrected.
Done, and on line 54.
John.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Reid
> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1:51 AM
> To: WG5
> Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5823) (j3.2006) Result of straw ballot
>
> Malcolm,
>
> N2119 says "This ballot is modeled on what we do for interpretations.
> They have been passed by J3 and need to be approved by WG5." For
> interpretations, we leave it to J3 (or EDIT) to deal with comments
> without expecting any further feedback. This is what I thought should
> happen here. To make this clear, I have changed the draft result to
>
> "All four changes are approved by WG5.
>
> WG5 requests that J3 considers the comments at its next meeting."
>
> I hope this is OK with you.
>
> David has pointed out that I failed to include your ballot. I am very
> sorry about this - I had filed it in the wrong directory. I know that it
> is easy to make such a mistake, which I always ask people to verify that
> I have their votes recorded correctly.
>
> New draft attached.
>
> John.
>
>
>
> Cohen Malcolm wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>>> C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future
>>> editorial processing
>>
>> This is not addressing my objection, not to mention it contradicts your
>> previous sentence "all four clearly passed", as it says these have only
>> conditionally passed, and that condition is currently not satisfied
>> therefore these have not passed.
>>
>> Aside: J3 is supposed to get the technical details right on EVERY feature!
>> There is nothing special about THESE features. We've swallowed enormous
>> camels of features without stooping to the nonsense of conditional
>> authorisation, why on earth are we straining at the gnats now?
>>
>> If you think the votes passed, and on the face of the voting figures one
>> might indeed think that, for goodness sake just declare them passed.
>>
>> As for the comments, J3 members either
>> (a) were the ones making the comments so will be pursuing them anyway if
>> they think them important, or
>> (b) have already responded to the comments saying they will do something
>> about it.
>>
>> I see no need for any further coercion. Are you trying to say we have to
>> take these ballot comments as official input and have to report back to
>> WG5?
>> That would be crazily bureaucratic for what is, after all, just a straw
>> vote, not a meeting resolution. Or you just want to unnecessarily demand
>> that J3 members do what they already said they would do?
>>
>> P.S. I am starting to regret my agreement that we could add these minor
>> flourishes at all, and beginning to think we ought to have just ruled
>> every
>> one of them out of order at the last J3 meeting.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Reid
>> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 6:43 PM
>> To: WG5
>> Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5821) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot
>>
>>
>>
>> Cohen Malcolm wrote:
>>> This is a vote whether to put something in the standard, or not.
>>
>> Well, all four clearly passed, so you have authority to put them all in
>> the draft standard. I was expecting that the comments would be
>> considered at the Feb. J3 meeting. How's this more precise wording?
>>
>> C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future
>> editorial processing
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The votes must either PASS or FAIL. I object in the strongest possible
>>> terms to the nonsense that "It passes subject to something happening in
>>> the
>>> future."
>>>
>>> If a vote does not PASS the editor will not put the feature into the
>>> standard, and given the timing that really rules it out of consideration
>>> until the 2020 revision.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Reid
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 11:54 PM
>>> To: WG5
>>> Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5819) Result of straw ballot
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Here is the tentative result of the ballot on four small technical
>>> changes. Please let me know by Dec 8 if I have missed a ballot or made
>>> any other error.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> John.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ukfortran mailing list
>>> https://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ukfortran mailing list
> https://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N2120-3
Result of the WG5 straw ballot on technical changes
John Reid
All four changes are approved by WG5.
WG5 requests that J3 considers the comments at its next meeting.
16- 16- 16- 16-
277r1 280r2 285r2 289
Bader Y Y Y Y
Chen Y Y Y Y
Clune Y Y Y Y
Cohen Y Y Y Y
Corbett C Y C Y
LeAir Y Y Y Y
Long C Y Y Y
Maclaren C Y - Y
Muxworthy Y Y Y Y
Nagle Y Y Y Y
Reid C Y Y Y
Shterenlikht Y Y Y Y
Sircombe Y Y Y Y
Snyder Y Y Y Y
Whitlock Y Y Y Y
Comments
06-277r1
Maclaren
Because assumed-size arrays can be converted to assumed-rank
objects, this change permits a usage that has no defined behaviour, and
where there are several possibilities compatible with the rest of the
standard. C_SIZEOF (18.2.3.7 486:24) forbids assumed-size arrays and,
in lines 29-31 defines the result in terms of the element size and
number of elements (which is unspecified for assumed-size arrays). Note
that I am not voting against the change in principle, but against the
lack of an explicit specification for this case.
Reid
In relation to Nick Maclaren's vote, the size of an assumed-size array
is specified in 8.5.8.5 of J3/16-007r2.
Long
I'm afraid that does not resolve the issue Nick raised. In 9.5.2 we say
"An assumed-size array (8.5.8.5) is permitted to appear as a whole array
in an executable construct or specification expression only as an actual
argument in a procedure reference that does not require the shape."
This is mainly because, even though we define a size in the standard,
that information is not normally available to a subprogram with an
assumed-size dummy argument. That is why the SIZE intrinsic has
restrictions on assumed-size array arguments, and the existing C_SIZEOF
function prohibits assumed-size arguments. That limitation for C_SIZEOF()
needs to be preserved for the case of an assumed-rank argument that is
argument associated with an assumed-size array. By allowing assumed-rank
arguments to SIZE, we need a similar limitation there as well. A note
about this is on my list of issues that need papers at m212. Thanks to
Nick for exposing this oversight.
Corbett
While I share Nick Maclaren's concern regarding assumed-size arrays,
I recognize that that is a separate issue from the one being balloted.
06-285r2
Maclaren
I am abstaining deliberately, because I cannot work out
whether the change clarifies the situation or not.
Corbett
I agree with the technical change. I have a concern about the wording
apart from the technical change.
The text of Subclauses 7.5.6.2 and 7.5.6.3 seem to conflict.
Subclause 7.5.6.2 states "Only finalizable entities are finalized."
Subclause 7.5.6.3 says that entities are finalized without requiring
that they be finalizable.
More information about the J3
mailing list