From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Oct 10 15:25:55 2005
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo2
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo2@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 04F5A19361; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:25:55 +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 8DD4314EB9
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:25:51 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from Mail.Math.Princeton.EDU (mail.math.Princeton.EDU [128.112.18.14])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j9ADPUbU070372
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:25:33 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from adonev@Math.Princeton.EDU)
Received: from [140.180.140.149] (adonev.student.Princeton.EDU [140.180.140.149])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by Mail.Math.Princeton.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9ADIDOm030071
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT)
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:18:14 -0400
Message-ID: <434A6A14.8000506@math.princeton.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:18:12 -0400
From: Aleksandar Donev <adonev@Math.Princeton.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 (No IDN)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>
Subject: Re: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3320)  SC22 meeting
References: <20051007143249.EA5CB13E6D@open-std.org> <20051008145352.35B9912FB2@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051008145352.35B9912FB2@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0 () 
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

J.L.Schonfelder wrote:

>> I said that we had no strong views on this and
>> would probably support whatever the standard finally says. Does anyone
>> disagree?
> The probable solution would be to operate with a base 10 normalisation 
> but to use a representation that effectively packed 3D into each 10 
> bits.
Thanks Lawrie for the edification on the issue. I however still agree 
with John that the Fortran's committee does not have a vested interest 
in this and can go with whatever the external standard's says. I can 
understand that Cobol people would care, but I don't think there is 
vested Fortran interest eitherway.

Best,
Aleksandar