From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Aug 1 17:23:42 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo2 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo2@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 3FBFF11327; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:23:42 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398721130E for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:23:40 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from fmsfmr001.fm.intel.com (fmr13.intel.com [192.55.52.67]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j71FNcwE077047 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:23:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stan.whitlock@intel.com) Received: from fmsfmr101.fm.intel.com (fmsfmr101.fm.intel.com [10.253.24.21]) by fmsfmr001.fm.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.1 2004/09/17 17:50:56 root Exp $) with ESMTP id j71DgFBj013948 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:42:15 GMT Received: from fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.124]) by fmsfmr101.fm.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.2 2004/09/17 18:05:01 root Exp $) with SMTP id j71Dg4Z5025926 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:42:15 GMT Received: from fmsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.148]) by fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2005080106421412321 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:42:14 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx312.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.227]) by fmsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 1 Aug 2005 06:42:14 -0700 Received: from hdsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.127.2.62]) by fmsmsx312.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 1 Aug 2005 06:42:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5969E.D27FB690" Subject: RE:(j3.2005) Re: 05-188 - BITS version of old typeless proposal Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:42:11 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE:(j3.2005) Re: 05-188 - BITS version of old typeless proposal Thread-Index: AcWWntGmWwF5gQqETi6LoZrk7stTQQ== From: "Whitlock, Stan" To: "WG5" Cc: "cc" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2005 13:42:14.0331 (UTC) FILETIME=[D34300B0:01C5969E] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44 X-Spam-Score: 0.997 () HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5969E.D27FB690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know it's August and a lot of people are on vacation but I'd like some input from the people who attended the Delft WG5/J3 meeting about what they expected the TYPELESS requirement J3-047 to turn into. The WG5 minutes N1631, the J3 minutes 05-190, and the WG5 resolutions N1630 are not very detailed in this regard. It would seem that straw votes on the TYPELESS proposal J3-047 favored instead "variable sized bit strings" and the proposal was to be renamed BITS. Future paper 05-188 which has just appeared was to replace the proposal in J3-047. That's all the information available to those of us who did not attend the meeting. =20 So what is the new requirement? Can it be stated without showing new syntax and arguing about optimization efficiencies of non-existent implementations? There are plenty of other very hard tasks to work on for Fortran 2008 without undertaking some undefined task that we'll just continue to argue about and vote in and out. So we should either get the requirement settled or we should do no more work on it until we {and that's the "WG5 who sets the massive list of wonderful requirements for the next standard" we} get it nailed down. =20 /Stan ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5969E.D27FB690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I know it's August and a lot of people are on = vacation but I'd like some input from the people who attended the Delft WG5/J3 = meeting about what they expected the TYPELESS requirement J3-047 to turn into. =  The WG5 minutes N1631, the J3 minutes 05-190, and the WG5 resolutions N1630 are = not very detailed in this regard.  It would seem that straw votes on = the TYPELESS proposal J3-047 favored instead "variable sized bit = strings" and the proposal was to be renamed BITS.  Future paper 05-188 which = has just appeared was to replace the proposal in J3-047.  That's all = the information available to those of us who did not attend the = meeting.

 

So what is the new requirement?  Can it be = stated without showing new syntax and arguing about optimization efficiencies = of non-existent implementations?  There are plenty of other very hard = tasks to work on for Fortran 2008 without undertaking some undefined task that = we'll just continue to argue about and vote in and out.  So we should = either get the requirement settled or we should do no more work on it until we {and = that's the "WG5 who sets the massive list of wonderful requirements for = the next standard" we} get it nailed down.

 

/Stan

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5969E.D27FB690--