From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Oct 7 16:32:49 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 CF36114995; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:32:49 +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 C779713ADB for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:32:47 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from oin.rl.ac.uk (oin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.200]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j97EWobU096897 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:32:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by oin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97EWn9S009320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:32:49 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j97EX989025891; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:33:09 +0100 Message-ID: <43468725.70005@rl.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:33:09 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050811 Fedora/1.7.10-1.1.1.legacy X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: SC22 meeting Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.9 : BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk WG5, The resolutions are visible as http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/def/n3989.htm All the actions that we requested happened, see resolutions 05-02, 05-06, 05-17, 05-31, 05-32 - a very satisfactory outcome from our point of view. The other resolutions that affect us are 1. Resolution 05-08: Revision of IEEE 754 Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic We are asked to provide our input regarding requirements for our decimal floating-point work. The Cobol convener gave me to understand that the current problems are associated with choosing the base: 10 or 1000. Cobol very firmly wants 10. I said that we had no strong views on this and would probably support whatever the standard finally says. Does anyone disagree? 2. Resolution 05-14: JTC 1/SC 22 N 3913, NP Ballot on Guidance to Avoiding Vulnerabilities in Programming Languages through Language Selection and Use I found it pretty hard to understand what this was all about. Roughly, it is to consider whether a language and the systems that implement it are vulnerable to unintended effects, both malicious and accidental. I said that the most obvious thing in Fortran is that the language disallows addressing an array outside its bounds, but that really thorough checks on this are rare. This sparked a lively discussion, which was terminated on the grounds that SC22 is concerned with organizational matters, not technical matters. It is worth noting that since I first started Fortran standards work, we have moved towards thinking that safety is important. If anyone is interested in collaborating on this topic with others, that would be very welcome. Perhaps we should invite someone to the London meeting - I think we are going to be very busy at the Fairfax meeting. Resolution 05-15: Grammar Engineering Project 3. Resolution 05-15: Grammar Engineering Project The Free University of Amsterdam has essentially offered to help set up tools that would check and manipulate bnf. Any thoughts on this Malcolm? Do you already use tools for this? 4. Resolution 05-36: Vocabulary Some work has been done on collecting terms from the glossaries of different languages and sorting them in a spreadsheet. Also, the Canadians have looked at about a hundred definitions and commented on them. My view is that a lightweight 'collect and display' effort would be useful. It would be helpful when we need a new term or when honing an old one. And if a definition is not clear to outsiders, we may need to alter it. So let's continue to provide our glossary, but not put a huge investment into it. Best wishes, John.