[J3] Consideration of Paper 18-242 at Meeting 218 (Was: 18-242)

[Craig T. Dedo, CAPM]

Hello J3 Members:

            This reply addresses Van Snyder’s questions in the last paragraph of his message:  “Can we consider 18-242 at meeting 218?  Not re-consider it, because (in my opinion), it was clearly not fully understood at meeting 217.  If so, does it need to be re-submitted to the server as a 218 paper?”

 

            Short Answer:  Yes, PL22.3, aka J3, can consider paper 18-242 at meeting 218.

 

            Details:  Here are the details in case you are interested.

 

            PL22.3 is governed by the SD-2, which in effect is its bylaws, and by the current edition (11th edition) of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RRONR).  Unless PL22.3 has adopted special rules of order that allow a subgroup to kill a paper or the bylaws, i.e., SD-2, authorize such action, the paper is “live”, i.e., a candidate for action until PL22.3 takes action on it in plenary.  Such plenary action could be to approve it, kill it, postpone it to the next meeting, refer it to a standing subgroup, create a special subgroup to study the paper, or something similar.

 

            Paper 18-242 was administratively referred to JOR and not acted on.  JOR did not report the paper back to plenary so paper 18-242 is still in the jurisdiction of JOR.  At Meeting 218 PL22.3 could discharge the paper from JOR and act on it.  Or, PL22.3 could instruct JOR to study the paper and report back with a recommendation and even impose a deadline for reporting back with its recommendation.

 

            Each week-long meeting is a session within the framework in RRONR.  Untransacted business automatically transfers over from one session to the next.  This means that paper 18-242 automatically transfers over to Meeting 218.

 

            Thus, Van, you can either have PL22.3 take action on 18-242 as submitted at Meeting 217 or else re-submit your paper with a new paper number for consideration at Meeting 218.  Either course of action is within the existing rules.  I’m not sure which one would be more acceptable from a human relations point of view.  You will need to find out from your fellow committee members.

 

            Hope this helps.

 

            Please feel free to contact me at any time with any questions or concerns that you may have.  I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Sincerely,

Craig T. Dedo, CAPM

17130 Burleigh Place

PO Box 423                              Mobile Phone:  (414) 412-5869

Brookfield, WI   53008-0423      E-mail:  <craig at ctdedo.com>

USA

LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo

-----Original Message-----
From: J3 [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Van Snyder via J3
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 04:03
To: j3
Cc: Van Snyder
Subject: [J3] 18-242

 

The minutes for meeting 217 report that 18-242 was dismissed by JOR 

 

        Seemingly syntax-sugar change would have semantic effect.

        No value seen.

 

My notes record only an announcement "no action" on Monday AM.

 

JOR did not ask me for clarification or amplification.  There was no

discussion during plenary.

 

Am I the only one who has colleagues who ask why (quoting 18-242):

 

        In <ac-implied-do-control>, the <ac-do-variable> can be preceded

        by <integer-type-spec> ::.

        

        In <data-implied-do>, the <data-i-do-variable> can be preceded

        by

        <integer-type-spec> ::.

        

        In <concurrent-header>, the <concurrent-control-list> can be

        preceded by <integer-type-spec> ::.

        

        This is not possible in <loop-control> or <io-implied-do>.

 

We clearly decided there was value for the <ac-implied-do-control>,

<data-implied-do>, and <concurrent-header> cases.

 

In those cases, there is semantic effect that was originally intended,

not "discovered" by an interp.

 

Why is there no value for the <loop-control> or <io-implied-do> case?

 

My colleagues see value for it, and marvel at the irregularity.

 

Indeed, in Ichbiah's response to requirements for the language that

became Ada, the ONLY form of what we call a DO construct declared a loop

index that had a scope of the construct.  This is NOT A NEW IDEA!

 

This sort of gratuitous and unnecessary irregularity mystifies students,

and invites computer-science professors to refuse to teach Fortran.

 

Can we consider 18-242 at meeting 218?  Not re-consider it, because (in

my opinion), it was clearly not fully understood at meeting 217.  If so,

does it need to be re-submitted to the server as a 218 paper?

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20181201/7b8640f2/attachment-0003.html>