Minutes of Meeting 134

X3J3 ANSI Fortran Standards Committee

August 21 - 25, 1995

Breckenridge, Colorado

X3J3 / 95-249r1

Table of Contents

Monday, August 21, 1995	1

1	Opening Business	1

1.1	X3J3 Meeting 134 Objectives	1

1.2	Membership Report	1

1.3	Discussion on Public Relations	1

1.4	Adoption of the Agenda	2

1.5	Appointment of Secretary	2

1.6	Approval of the Meeting 133 Minutes	2

1.7	Meeting 133 Action Items	2

1.8	Treasurer's Report	2

1.9	X3/OMC Report	3

1.10	ISO/WG5 Report	3

1.11	Comments from Members	3

1.12	Subgroup Assignments	4

1.13	Public Review Comment Processing Procedure	5

2	Conditional Compilation	5

3	Subgroup Reports	5

4	End of Day Comments from Members	6

Tuesday, August 22, 1995	7

5	ENABLE Proposal	7

6	Subgroup Reports	7

7	Interpretations Processing	8

8	Discussion on Minor Feature Requests	8

9	Fortran 2000 Requirements and Process	9

Wednesday, August 23, 1995	10

10	Interpretations and Edit Processing	10

11	Review of Features to be Placed on the Obsolescent List	10

12	Strategic Planning for Fortran 2000	10

13	Subgroup Reports and Processing	12

Thursday, August 24, 1995	13

14	Subgroup Reports and Processing	13

Friday, August 25, 1995	15

15	Subgroup Reports and Processing	15

16	Interpretations Processing	16

17	Proposed Features for Fortran 2000	16

17.1	Discussion on Asynchronous I/O	16

17.2	TR on Allocatable Components	17

17.3	Interoperability	17

18	Closing Business	17

18.1	Membership Report	17

18.2	Future Meetings	17

18.3	Treasurer's Report	17

18.4	Funding the WG5 Meeting	18

18.5	Review of Action Items	18

18.6	Acknowledgments	18

18.7	Review of Upcoming Deadlines	18

18.8	Comments from Members	18

Appendix A
Agenda for X3J3 Meeting 134	19

Appendix B
Committee Organization	21

Appendix C
Future Meetings and Distribution Assignments	22

Appendix D
Membership Summary	23

Appendix E
X3J3 Membership	24

Meeting 134 Minutes

by Craig T. Dedo

September 26, 1995

Monday, August 21, 1995

A regular meeting was held at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, August 21, 1995 in the Peak 2 Conference Room at the Beaver Run Resort and Conference Center, 620 Village Road, Breckenridge, CO 80424. Jerrold Wagener was in the chair and Craig Dedo took the minutes.

1	Opening Business

1.1	X3J3 Meeting 134 Objectives

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

•	Process Public Review Comments - We need to prepare a formal answer to all formal submissions to ANSI.

•	Prepare for the WG5 meeting to be held in November 1995 in San Diego, CA.

•	Fortran 90 Interpretations - Resolve as many as time permits.

•	Exception Handling Proposal - We should expect a full featured exception handling capability to be included in Fortran 2000. We should start now on the development work. This will overlap with John Reid's Type 2 Technical Report (TR) commissioned by WG5 and his more extensive full featured proposal that he is doing in addition to the TR work.

•	Parameterized Derived Types - What, if anything, do we want to do about it? Should X3J3 develop its own proposal rather than only depend on the outcome of the TR process? What do we want to do about the allocatable components part of the TR effort?

•	Interoperability with C - The TR effort is floundering. There is no permanent project editor. Miles Ellis, WG5 Convenor, has temporarily assumed the role himself. What should be our approach on this issue? What do we want to do? Should we take over this project or form a subgroup to do the work?

1.2	Membership Report

Discussion Leader:	Larry Rolison

ACSET declared bankruptcy recently. It will no longer be represented on X3J3.

Current Membership:	22

Quorum:	8

One over half:	12

Members in Danger of Losing Membership:

James Himer	(Exxon)

Bill Lassaline	(Lahey Computer Systems)

Linda O'Gara	(Microsoft)

1.3	Discussion on Public Relations

Discussion Leader: none

Should we be doing more to make X3J3 decisions and issues more accessible to the public and interested parties? No decisions. Following are some ideas that were mentioned:

•	Develop a Fortran Word Wide Web (WWW) page.

•	Post meeting notices and other major X3J3 documents on comp.lang.fortran, the Internet Usenet news group for the Fortran language.

•	Post announcements of major X3J3 documents on comp-fortran-90 , an Internet E-mail mailing list.

•	Put as many X3J3 documents as possible on the X3J3 server.

•	Send press releases summarizing major decisions and issues of interest to publications in computer science, information systems, other sciences, engineering, and related fields. Ivor Philips had such a list when he was a member of X3J3. It included not only CS and IS publications but also publications in other fields that had interest in Fortran.

1.4	Adoption of the Agenda

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

Presented as mailed with changes proposed by Jerrold Wagener (see Appendix A).

Motion:	Adopt the agenda with the changes as proposed by Jerrold Wagener.

Moved:	Stan Whitlock	Second:	Craig Dedo

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

1.5	Appointment of Secretary

Linda O'Gara, X3J3 Secretary, did not come to Meeting 134 and indicated by E-mail that she would be the alternate for Microsoft instead of the primary member. This leaves the office of Secretary vacant.

Craig Dedo volunteered to be Acting Secretary for Meeting 134 and Jerrold Wagener appointed him to that position.

Jerrold Wagener asked for volunteers for the permanent X3J3 Secretary. Anyone who would like the position should contact Jerrold Wagener or Larry Rolison.

1.6	Approval of the Meeting 133 Minutes

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

Reference:	95-151

Motion:	Approve the minutes as presented.

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Stan Whitlock

Amendments:

•	2.8, p. 7, 12th Item. The first sentence of Craig Dedo's remarks should read, "I think that WG5 is doing this because we did not fully and fairly consider ENABLE in November."

•	2.8, p. 8, 2nd Item. The first sentence of the first quotation by Richard Maine should read, "95-103 is issued from using papers from preceding meetings to edit 007."

Action on the Amendments:	Both passed by unanimous consent.

Action on the Main Motion as Amended:	Passed by unanimous consent.

1.7	Meeting 133 Action Items

1.	Richard Maine	Check with Bob Corbett about 95-103, item 34, and check with the Convenor of WG5 to confirm or fix item 34.

Bob Corbett's Recommendation: Replace all references to CCIR with references to ISO 8601.

Status: Done

2.	Kurt Hirchert	Add x3j3 - jor alias on the X3J3 server and check that auto-unzip works on the server.

•	The x3j3 - jor alias exists.

•	Kurt Hirchert has not checked out whether the auto-unzip feature works yet.

Status:	Incomplete

1.8	Treasurer's Report

Discussion Leader:	Mallory North

Reference:	95-157 for Meeting 133

1.9	X3/OMC Report

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

Reference:	none

1.	X3 is making copies of its papers available on its World Wide Web (WWW) page. This means that fewer papers will be available as hard copy.

2.	Liaison information. Our liaison with X3H3 (Database standards) has changed. Presley Smith has been our liaison to them. He usually gets minutes and meeting notices. We have not maintained our list of country liaisons. After this meeting, Larry Rolison will contact those on the current list asking them if they still want to be on our list.

3.	So far, there are four official responses to the Public Review of Fortran 95. They are from:

•	IBM

•	Walt Brainerd

•	Layne Watson of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI)

•	Alan McKenny of the Courant Institute

We also have received several unofficial public review comments.

4.	The annual report to X3 is generally presented at the X3 OMC meeting in Scottsdale, AZ in May 1995. Neither Jerry Wagener nor Larry Rolison could attend this meeting due to schedule conflicts. Jerrold Wagener will attend the September meeting in Nashua, NH.

5.	There is a concern about whether NIST will continue to validate implementations in the event that the ANSI FORTRAN 77 standard is withdrawn.

1.10	ISO/WG5 Report

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

Reference:	none

1.	Each of us should have gotten a mailing from Miles Ellis, WG5 Convenor. It includes WG5 papers N1125 - N1134 . All of them have been presented to SC22.

2.	Fortran 95 is expected to be ready for a DIS ballot by April 1996. It is extremely doubtful that there will be a ballot before then.

3.	Revision 007r2 will incorporate all comments and part of our vote on the Fortran 95 Committee Draft. A paper describes the differences between versions 007r1 and 007r2. The version 007r1 will still be the official Committee Draft. After the document is officially presented to WG5, WG5 has to take a country vote in order for there to be any further changes. At least two countries must vote NO in order for the draft to go back for further review. The WG5 document is N1124 .

1.11	Comments from Members

Craig Dedo	Will there be any opportunity to discuss strategic planning for Fortran 2000 at the November 1995 meeting in San Diego? [Answer: Yes]

In doing strategic planning for Fortran 2000, we should not rule out any feature. If we rule out certain features right away, we may rule out a feature which we later find is badly needed; interoperability comes to mind. However, we do need to set priorities.

I am concerned that when we need to make decisions, too often we have chosen to engage in corner-cutting rather than going with the more robust solution. I would like to see this change for Fortran 2000; we should place more emphasis on robustness.

I am getting confused on all the deadlines we are facing. Could someone please put together a comprehensive list?

David Levine	The world is changing but X3J3 has not adjusted to it. We have fewer resources, more work to do, and there is less interest in Fortran in the world at large. We are spinning our wheels. We should move forward, be behind the TRs , and back existing practice. Some existing practice may be ugly but it works. From my contact with users, the user community may be more interested in incremental changes.

Jeanne Martin	We just received a Fortran - C interoperability proposal from Andy Meltzer [paper 95-199]. There also is a previously published paper on the same subject, "Interlanguage Communication on the NERSC CRAYs " [paper 95-200].

Walt Brainerd	I will soon be teaching Fortran 90 classes in three places: NASA, JPL, and an Army Research Center in Mississippi. This last place has a very restrictive programming style. They are using Fortran 90 for new projects and sticking strictly to the standard.

1.12	Subgroup Assignments

Edit - Kurt Hirchert, Richard Maine, Mallory North

Produce the 95 -007r2 document

Document the changes between 95-007r1 and 95-007r2

Interpretations - Richard Bleikamp, Bill Lassaline, Larry Rolison, Janice Shepherd

Walt Brainerd comments

Smith comments

Loren Meissner comments

Interpretations (papers 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 186, 187)

JOR - Jeanne Adams, Walt Brainerd, Craig Dedo, Stan Whitlock

VPI comments

Courant Institute comments

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) comments (95-191)

Check to see if the language of the constraint to rule R506 in section 7.1.7 creates a problem with the concept of "standard conforming"

Fortran 2000 requirements (papers 178, 179, 185, 189, 191)

Parallel - Keith Bierman, Richard Hendrickson, James Himer, Ted Terpstra

Exception Handling (95-192)

Kurt Hirchert comments (95-190)

David Levine comments

OOF - David Epstein, David Levine, Jeanne Martin

IBM comments

Possibly handle Parameterized Derived Types?

Interoperability - Graham Barber, Linda O'Gara, Henry Zongaro

No members from this group are at this meeting.

1.13	Public Review Comment Processing Procedure

Following is the process to be used in responding to public review comments.

•	Send all editorial comments to the Edit Subgroup.

•	Prepare proposals for technical changes. X3J3 must approve all technical changes in a plenary session before they can go to the Edit Subgroup.

•	Construct responses to commentors.

There may be disagreement about why things failed. If feasible, we should include reasons for the failure of a feature.

Official responses to an official, registered comment have to get a 2/3 vote. The formal responses to public review comments should be high quality letters.

What about public review comments that come in after the meeting? Should we use electronic processing?

Can we define the term "standard conforming" so that it is processor independent? Should we produce a paper on the definition of "standard conforming"?

Recess.

2	Conditional Compilation

Discussion Leader:	David Epstein

Reference:	95-178, CCF Proposed Technical Report Type 2

95-202, Conditional Compilation Presentation

Scribe notes not available. With the consent of those present, David Epstein tape recorded the presentation and subsequent discussion.

Straw Vote:	Do we favor a standardized conditional compilation facility?

13	Favor

0	Oppose

3	Undecided

Recess.

3	Subgroup Reports

Edit

By the end of the meeting, the Edit Subgroup will produce a paper containing all of this meeting's edits and will produce electronic ASCII copies of the edits. There will be 3 categories of items:

1.	Show-stoppers. The US will vote NO unless we address and resolved these issues to our satisfaction.

2.	Technical issues which should get done but which are not show-stoppers.

3.	Purely editorial items.

After this meeting, there will be two copies of the Fortran 95 Committee Draft, 95 -007r1 and 95-007r2. Which document do we reference?

Interpretations

There are 26 comment items that need to be done. The remainder are ready for WG5 or are already approved by WG5.

Interpretations will pull Interpretation 81 because it interacts with Interpretation 125.

Following is a list of interpretations which the Interpretations Subgroup hopes to have ready for a vote sometime this week.

Paper #	Interpretation

177	125 - Procedure Arguments with the TARGET Attribute

180	155 - Multiple USE Statements, Rename, and ONLY Lists

181	199 - KIND Type Parameters and the DELIM = Specifier

182	200 - Evaluation of NINT and Machine Approximations

186	175 - What is a "Constant Specification Expression"?

187	198 - Characteristics of Dummy Procedures

196	83 - Extending Generic Intrinsic Procedures

Interpretation 196 may go away; this depends on the answer that we give to Interpretation 125.

Paper 95-184 is a status report on all of the outstanding interpretations. It includes an assessment of the impact each interpretation has on the language and the difficulty of finding a successful resolution. There are 26 interpretations on the list. If we pass all seven, the number of outstanding interpretations will drop to 19.

JOR

Following is a list of papers that JOR will be considering.

191 - List of all items from LLNL for Fortran 95 and Fortran 2000

178 - CCF Proposed Technical Report Type 2

179 - David Levine's Comments on CCF Proposal

185 - Lawrence Ruby's Proposal for Standardizing Behavior of Uninitialized Variables in Fortran 2000

189 - Janice Shepherd's Proposal for an Annex of Processor Dependent Items

193 - High Performance Fortran Forum (HPFF) Recommendations on Fortran 2000

JOR will be developing recommendations for items in the JOR and will attempt to set priorities on items as either High, Medium, or Low. JOR may propose archiving some things.

Parallel

Parallel is looking at 4 papers and spent some time on ENABLE. John Reid is moving fast on it; he considers ENABLE a top priority.

OOF

OOF will try to answer all of the IBM comments by tomorrow.

4	End of Day Comments from Members

Stan Whitlock	I have a sense of foreboding. It is more important to get the comments and interpretations done. Will strategic planning get short shrift?

Richard Maine	When we are done with reviewing the JOR and setting priorities for Fortran 2000, will it make coherent sense? We need a final wrap-up stage.

Jerrold Wagener	How do we achieve a coherent wrap-up?

David Levine	Each subgroup will prepare responses to the public review comments. What does the full committee do?

Jerrold Wagener	I expect X3J3 to vote on the responses.

Recess at 5:56 p.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 1995.

Tuesday, August 22, 1995

Call to order at 8:30 a.m.

5	ENABLE Proposal

Parallel

Discussion Leader:	Dick Hendrickson

Reference:	95-192, Enable Technical Report

95-212, ENABLE Discussion

John Reid is running a very open process. Although the TR charter is to develop an exception handling capability only for floating point conditions, John is also doing a larger scope proposal which will handle many other conditions.

The latest version of ENABLE takes a new approach. This version treats conditions as variables in a module. Following are additional features:

•	A programmer has to USE CONDITIONS module in order to set conditions.

•	The module allows comparisons against default integer zero and against a named constant (PARAMETER) defined as QUIET.

•	A programmer can define additional exceptions.

•	There are still SIGNAL and HANDLE statements.

What happens in PURE procedures? PURE procedures cannot set variables inside modules. In a PURE procedure, the processor acts as if there were an initial ENABLE statement at the beginning. If a condition is signaling at the beginning, there will be an immediate return. If there is entry into a PURE procedure beyond the beginning, it is as if there is a local copy of the condition variables. This model allows any instance of PURE procedures to signal conditions without affecting any other instances. If a condition is signaling at the end, the condition is copied to a global copy of the condition. This means that the CONDITIONS module would have properties different from all other modules.

This model fits in well with ordinary Fortran. If a variable goes out of scope, e.g., a procedure with USE CONDITIONS returns to a procedure without USE CONDITIONS, the processor issues a warning message. How does a processor know if a variable goes out of scope?

What do we tell John Reid? Do we want more clarification?

Extensive discussion on ENABLE (not recorded here). Result: X3J3 wants the Parallel Subgroup to consider the discussion and bring back a recommendation on how to act on this issue.

6	Subgroup Reports

OOF

There is nothing to report.

JOR

Papers 95-204 and 95-205 are ready for reading.

How do we fix the wording for KIND=?

Many users mistakenly believe that obsolescent means that features will disappear immediately instead of in a future version of the standard.

7	Interpretations Processing

Motion:	Approve 95-196, Interpretation 000083, Extending Generic Intrinsic Procedures

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	David Levine

Action:	Passed by counted vote by show of hands.	Vote:	Yes - 13	No - 2

Motion:	Approve 95-186, Interpretation 000175, What is a "Constant Specification Expression"?

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

Motion:	Approve 95-182, Interpretation 000200, Evaluation of NINT and Machine Approximations

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Withdrawn

Motion:	Approve 95-181, Interpretation 000199, KIND Type Parameters and the DELIM = Specifier

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

Motion:	Approve 95-180, Interpretation 000155, Multiple USE Statements, Rename, and ONLY Lists

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Fails by counted vote by show of hands.	Vote:	Yes - 7	No - 9

Recess.

Motion:	Approve 95-177r2, Interpretation 125, Procedure Arguments with the TARGET Attribute

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by counted vote by show of hands.	Vote:	Yes - 14	No - 2

8	Discussion on Minor Feature Requests

Discussion Leader:	none

Jerrold Wagener	What do we do about the comments of the nature of, "It would be really nice if we would add this one minor feature that no one would object to and the cost is not great"? Is it appropriate to bring these items forward?

Kurt Hirchert	There should be a process for minor features and enhancements. It really bothers me that we never spend time on these issues. We always spend lots of time on these big, complex, and costly features, but never on the small stuff. They seem to slip through the cracks. We need to make time for considering minor enhancements.

David Levine	This is like the shipment of any product. In most companies, final pre-shipment activity is carefully monitored to ensure holding to the release schedule. Work is limited to achieving stability and removing known defects. Any last minute additions ("features") will just have to wait for the next release.

David Epstein	We should treat this as any software company shipping a software product. There is no way a feature will creep into a software product after spending 90% of the testing time. So, no, we do not want to add an item after (during) testing mode.

Keith Bierman	It's obvious that the process is broken. WG5 wants to ship the product this fall. That means that the public comment really does not mean anything. We need to allocate the time to consider all public comments if we are serious about what they have to say.

Craig Dedo	At the very least, we should put out a report on what our response is to each of the public review comments. In the future, we should fix the process in order to make sure that there is time at the table for minor feature requests.

9	Fortran 2000 Requirements and Process

Discussion Leader:	Jerrold Wagener

Reference:	none

To what extent should the following strategic objectives influence Fortran 2000 requirements?

High Performance

Object Oriented

Windows Support

General Purpose Programming

Programmer Productivity

User Demand

Other objectives that various members of X3J3 might consider important

One possible way to start the process would be to weight each proposed feature on how well it achieves each strategic objective. We could construct a table like the following. In each cell we would score how each feature contributes to the achievement of each strategic objective. By adding up the scores of each cell, we could get a weighted score of each feature's importance.

Objective 1	Objective 2	Objective 3	Objective n
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
Feature n

Kurt Hirchert	In our experience, we have only focused on the large merit and large cost features. We need to have some way of including the low cost features.

Jeanne Martin	I feel a real sense of urgency. We need to have something to present to WG5 in November. We need to have a whole report.

David Epstein	We really need to look at this from a business perspective. Any private firm in our position would be asking why our last release did not sell very well. Fortran is dwindling in general appeal and there must be reasons for that. We can be flexible on the date when the next Fortran release ships. Could we have a Fortran 98? We should not set a ship date before we know what we are doing. We should keep this point in mind: What are the reasons that Fortran is not selling?

Dick Hendrickson	With the time that we have available, we can only get a rough triage.

Keith Bierman	We should keep the slides and present them to the WG5 meeting. We are not answering the big question: What is our principal thrust?

Stan Whitlock	We need to come up with a list of suggested requirements for WG5. Some items in the JOR have overlap. Right now, the only planning tool we have is the JOR. There are a lot of little features that are not in the JOR.

Richard Maine	We should be aware of not only the benefit but also the cost.

Recess at 12:00 noon until 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 23.

Wednesday, August 23, 1995

Call to order at 8:30 a.m.

10	Interpretations and Edit Processing

Discussion Leader:	Janice Shepherd

Motion:	Approve 95-187, Interpretation 000198, Characteristics of Dummy Procedures

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Stan Whitlock

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

Motion:	Approve 95-206, Edits based on Meissner's E-mail Public Review Comments

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

Motion:	Approve 95-213, Responses to Walt Brainerd's Public Review Comments

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent.

11	Review of Features to be Placed on the Obsolescent List

Discussion Leader:	Stan Whitlock

Reference:	none

Motion:	Remove Statement Functions from the Obsolescent List

Moved:	Stan Whitlock	Second:	Larry Rolison

Action:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 4	No - 10

Motion:	Remove Computed GOTO from the Obsolescent List

Moved:	Stan Whitlock	Second:	Janice Shepherd

Action:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 6	No - 8

Motion:	Remove Assumed Size Arrays from the Obsolescent List

Moved:	Stan Whitlock	Second:	Craig Dedo

Action:	Passed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 9	No - 6

Stan Whitlock announced that he received the following papers to add items to the JOR.

95-189, JOR Item 77, Annex of Processor Dependent Items

95-208, JOR Item 78, Standardized Module Processing

12	Strategic Planning for Fortran 2000

Discussion Leader:	Stan Whitlock

Reference:	95-214, Preliminary Recommendations for Fortran 2000 Requirements

Stan Whitlock presented a list of items from the JOR which the JOR Subgroup recommended for Fortran 2000. Discussion added several more items to the list. The following table presents the votes on the priority classification of each item.

Priority

JOR

Item #	Vote

JOR Item Title
H	M	N
High	none	10	4	1	Asynchronous I/O
Medium	none	3	10	3	Allocatable Components of Derived Types
Medium	none	0	8	7	Parameterized Derived Types
High	000	15	1	0	Minor Technical Enhancements
Medium	010	1	12	3	Nesting of Internal Procedures
High	012	15	0	0	Condition Handling
No	014	4	2	9	Language Management
High	015	14	2	0	Conditional Compilation
High	016	12	2	2	Command Line Arguments; see also JOR items

040 Obtain the Command Line

041 Obtain Program Startup Command
Medium	017	3	10	3	Bit Data Type - String
No	018	0	4	9	Controlling Pointer Bounds
Medium	026	3	6	3	Compiler Directives; see also 038 Complete Set of Compiler Directives

[Second Vote: 9 In - 3 Out In

Third Vote: 2 High - 12 Medium Medium]
Medium	027	5	6	3	Intrinsic Modules

[Second Vote: 3 High - 10 Medium Medium]
Medium	031	3	9	2	Varying Length Characters with Declared Maximum
Medium	032	0	9	2	POSIX Binding to Fortran 90
Medium	033	3	8	4	Object Oriented Fortran; see also 043 OOP Capabilities
Medium	034	1	7	5	Variable Repeat Specifiers in FORMATs
Medium	035	3	10	1	Specifying Default Precisions
Medium	044	3	4	7	Unsigned INTEGER Data Type

[Second Vote: 8 Medium - 5 No Medium]
No	047	0	3	8	File Sharing Modes
High	048	14	1	0	Interoperability; see also 037 Argument Passing Mechanisms
No	056	0	5	9	Ranges Specified by Start and Length
Medium	058	4	10	1	Regularize Handling of Pointer Arguments
Medium	059	1	9	3	Pointers to Procedures
No	060	2	1	11	Pointer Association Classes
No	065	2	3	7	POINTER Objects as Operands
Medium	067	5	6	5	>7 Array Dimensions

[Second Vote: 10 In - 6 Out In

Third Vote: 2 High - 13 Medium Medium]
Medium	075	3	8	3	Remove Limitation on Statement Length
No	076	2	3	6	EXPM1 & LOGP1 Intrinsics
High	077	7	6	2	Processor Dependent Features List

[Second Vote: 8 High - 7 Medium High]
No	078	1	4	9	Standardized Modules

The JOR Subgroup will issue version 95 -214r1 showing the vote totals.

13	Subgroup Reports and Processing

Parallel

Discussion Leader:	Dick Hendrickson

Reference:	95-209, Intrinsic Floating Point Support

Straw Vote:	Should this proposal be a requirement for a YES vote on Fortran 95?

Yes - 3	No - 12	Undecided - 0

Straw Vote:	If we can find someone to do the work, should we develop a full proposal to bring to WG5 for the November meeting as an alternative or supplement to the ENABLE feature?

Yes - 7	No - 6	Undecided - 1

Considering the straw vote result, the Parallel Subgroup will do no more work on this proposal.

Motion:	Approve 95-212, ENABLE Discussion, as amended

Moved:	Craig Dedo	Second:	Keith Bierman

Action:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 5	No - 8

Straw Vote:	X3J3 supports Dick Hendrickson sending this paper to John Reid informally.

Yes - 14	No - 0	Undecided - 0

OOF

Motion:	Approve 95-215, IBM FORALL Comments - Proposed Technical Edits

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	David Epstein

Amendment:	Change "two constraints" to "four constraints" throughout the paper.

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	David Levine

Action on Amendment:	Passed by unanimous consent

Action on Main Motion:	Passed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 12	No - 2

Edit

Motion:	Approve 95-210, Editorial Changes in 95-007r1 from Hank Lauson

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-211, Normative Reference Changes to 95-007r1

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Recess until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 24, 1995.

Thursday, August 24, 1995

Call to order at 8:30 a.m.

14	Subgroup Reports and Processing

JOR

Discussion Leader:	Stan Whitlock

•	Paper 95-214r1 contains the votes on JOR items for the Fortran 2000 recommendation.

•	VPI and Courant formal public comments are in paper 95-204. We will make responses to these public comments after the WG5 meeting in November.

•	There will be no further action on the LLNL comments in paper 95-191 on obsolescent features and Fortran 2000 suggestions.

•	There will be no further action on papers 95-178 and 95-179 on CCF.

•	There will be no action on paper 95-185 on uninitialized variables. The answers were verified in E-mail.

•	Paper 95-189 has been registered as JOR Item 77.

•	There will be no further action on paper 95-193 from HPFF on suggestions for Fortran 2000.

•	Paper 95-208 has been registered as JOR Item 78.

•	Paper 95-224 will be ready for the US TAG this afternoon. It contains the high and medium priority items for WG5 from paper 95-214r1.

Edit

Discussion Leader:	Richard Maine

Motion:	Approve 95-216, Fixes to MAXLOC , MINLOC , and Related Intrinsics

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-217, ACEILING and AFLOOR Intrinsics

Moved:	Kurt Hirchert	Second:	Craig Dedo

Action:	Passed by counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 8	No - 6

Parliamentary Inquiry by Stan Whitlock: Does this motion require an ANSI-style 2/3 vote?

Answer by Jerrold Wagener: It only requires a simple majority vote.

Motion:	Reconsider the vote on 95-217

Moved:	Walt Brainerd	Seconded

Action on Motion to Reconsider:	Passed by unanimous consent

Action on 95-217:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 4	No - 10

Motion:	Approve 95-223, Editorial Changes from Brian Smith Comments, Part 1

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-226, ENTRY vs. PURE and ELEMENTAL

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 0	No - 13

Motion:	Approve 95-225, Responses to IBM Comment #1

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-229, Miscellaneous Edits Proposed by Brian Smith

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-230, Miscellaneous Editorial Changes

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action:	Passed, as amended, on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 12	No - 1

OOF

Discussion Leader:	David Levine

Motion:	Approve 95-233, IBM Comments #1 to #50 with Responses

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	Jeanne Martin

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Straw Vote:	Do we want to leave in the text the note written in response to Item 6? (The note explains the limitations of automatic deallocation.)

Yes - 6	No - 5

Motion:	Approve 95-234, IBM comments #51 to #75

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	David Epstein

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Parallel

Motion:	Approve 95-227, Miscellaneous Responses to Public Comments

Moved:	Dick Hendrickson	Second:	Keith Bierman

Amendment:	Remove the note to [2:43]

Moved:	Richard Maine	Second:	Kurt Hirchert

Action on Amendment:	Passed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 12	No - 1

Straw Vote:	Do we want to leave in the sentence in [118:19] on many-to-one assignment?

Leave in [118:19] - 10	Remove [118:19] - 2

Action on Main Motion:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-228, Responses to 95-203

Moved:	Dick Hendrickson	Second:	Keith Bierman

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Interpretations

Motion:	Approve 95-218, Analysis of Brian Smith's Public Review Comments

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-231, More Replies to Comments from Brian Smith

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-232, Brian Smith's Public Review Comments, Round 2 of ?

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve Defect Item 179, DO Variable with POINTER Attribute

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Keith Bierman

Action:	Referred to Edit Subgroup

Action Item by Janice Shepherd: Craig Dedo should send the first draft of the minutes to Jerrold Wagener for his review before sending them to Mallory North for distribution or placing them on the X3J3 server or mailing list.

Recess until 8:00 a.m. on Friday, August 25, 1995.

Friday, August 25, 1995

Call to order at 8:00 a.m.

15	Subgroup Reports and Processing

Motion:	Approve 95-188, Responses to 95-205 (41, 46, and 48) and 95-203 (8, 9, 14, and 3)

Moved:	Dick Hendrickson	Second:	Keith Bierman

Action:	passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95 -233r1 , Responses to IBM Comments, Part 1 (#1 thru #50)

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	Jeanne Martin

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95 -234r1 , Responses to IBM Comments, Part 2 (#51 thru #75)

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	David Epstein

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-238, USE Clarification

Moved:	Kurt Hirchert	Second:	Richard Maine

Action:	Failed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 7	No - 7

Motion:	Approve 95-240, Response to IBM Comments #76 thru #156 (End)

Moved:	David Levine	Second:	Jeanne Martin

Straw Vote:	Should we take out the edits in items 87, 88, and 90?

Take the edits out - 8	Leave the edits in and fix later - 6	Undecided - 0

Action:	Passed, as amended, on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 14	No - 1

Motion:	Approve 95-242, Response to IBM Comments 26, 27, 36, and 38

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-243, Brian Smith's Public Review Comments, Rest of Round 2

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Motion:	Divide the Question so that there is a separate vote on the edit to section 12.6 [210:39]

Moved:	Keith Bierman	Second:	Craig Dedo

Action on Motion to Divide the Question:	Passed by unanimous consent

Action on Part 1 (less edit to [210:39]):	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Action on Part 2 (edit to [210:39]):	Passed on a counted vote by show of hands

Vote:	Yes - 13	No - 2

Motion:	Approve 95-245, More Items from Smith Comments

Moved:	Kurt Hirchert	Second:	Walt Brainerd

Action:	Passed, as amended, by unanimous consent

Recess.

16	Interpretations Processing

Motion:	Approve 95-239, Alternative Response to Defect Item 155, Multiple USE Statements, Rename, and ONLY Lists

Moved:	Kurt Hirchert	Second:	Craig Dedo

Action:	Postponed by unanimous consent until we resolve the underlying ambiguity

Motion:	Approve 95-244, Revision of Defect item 81, Pointer Actual Argument Overlap

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Richard Bleikamp

Action:	passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-246, Revised Response to Defect Item 179, DO Variable with POINTER Attribute

Moved:	Janice Shepherd	Second:	Larry Rolison

Action:	passed by unanimous consent

Motion:	Approve 95-247, RFI on Evaluation of Functions

Moved:	Craig Dedo	Second:	Keith Bierman

Amendment:	Remove the last sentence in the discussion section

Moved:	Richard Bleikamp	Second:	Janice Shepherd

Action on Amendment:	Passed on a counted vote by show of hands	Vote:	Yes - 10	No - 1

Action on Main Motion:	Passed, as amended, on a counted vote by show of hands

Vote:	Yes - 9	No - 4

Recess for TAG Meeting.

17	Proposed Features for Fortran 2000

17.1	Discussion on Asynchronous I/O

Reference:	95-235, Asynch I/O

95-241, JOR Item on Asynchronous I/O

Discussion Leader: Craig Dedo

Following are the major points covered in the discussion.

•	Make sure that after the I/O operation is started, that nothing uses the variable in any way until the I/O operation is completed.

•	Be careful about pointer associations that involve variables in the asynchronous I/O list.

•	Under what conditions does a variable in an asynchronous I/O operation become undefined?

•	What happens to the variables in the I/O list if the asynchronous I/O operation does not return?

•	Should we allow multiple I/O operations to be outstanding on the same unit at the same time?

•	What operating system dependencies will we encounter?

•	We need to accommodate operating systems and hardware that do not support asynchronous I/O.

•	The work that HPFF has been doing in this area is very important. We need to coordinate our work with theirs. Make sure that there is full two-way communication and very few misunderstandings.

•	Be sure to follow the standard model for developing new features. The developer should go through these steps.

1.	A statement of the requirement.

2.	A survey of existing implementations.

3.	Tutorials on the feature. Good tutorials are extremely important. A proposal without them will go nowhere.

4.	Outline of a proposal.

5.	Straw votes.

6.	A detailed proposal.

•	Be sure to know how to handle interactions with END=, ERR=, and NAMELIST.

•	Interactions with exception handling. Work closely with John Reid on this, but don't expect him to take over the work.

17.2	TR on Allocatable Components

Jerrold Wagener asked if there were any volunteers who were willing to work with Dr. Lawrie Schonfelder of the University of Liverpool on this. David Epstein and Jeanne Martin volunteered to work with Dr. Schonfelder and participate in the work. Kurt Hirchert volunteered to be an observer.

17.3	Interoperability

Jerrold Wagener expressed some concerns about the state of the Interoperability TR project. Right now, we do not have a permanent project editor. Miles Ellis, the WG5 Convenor, is the temporary project editor. The three members of the Interoperability Subgroup, Linda O'Gara, Graham Barber, and Henry Zongaro, are not at this meeting. One thing that we are sure of is that this is a very high priority for WG5.

There was some discussion about possible project editors. An American project editor would not have to be a member of X3J3. It is possible that more than one person from the same organization could be on the project team. Richard Maine and Keith Bierman volunteered to be observers on the project team.

18	Closing Business

18.1	Membership Report

Discussion Leader:	Larry Rolison

Jules George of ACSET lost membership. No one else lost membership and no one else is endangered.

Members in jeopardy: Graham Barber (Edinburgh Portable Compilers), James Himer (Exxon), Bill Lassaline (Lahey Computer Systems), and Linda O'Gara (Microsoft).

Total Membership:	22

Present or Represented:	18

Jeopardy:	4

Prospective Members:	0

18.2	Future Meetings

See also Appendix C.

Meeting 135 is November 13-17, 1995 in San Diego, CA.

Originally, there were only 3 meetings scheduled for 1996, due to potential conflicts with the Fortran 95 DIS ballot. However, we are uncertain when the DIS ballot period will be.

Motion:	Have a regular 4 meeting schedule in 1996, with the following tentative dates:

136	February 12-16

137	May 13-17

138	August 12-16

139	November 11-15

Moved:	Jerrold Wagener	Second:	Larry Rolison

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

There was some discussion about possible meeting places for the 1996 meetings but nothing was decided.

18.3	Treasurer's Report

Discussion Leader:	Mallory North

Reference:	95-248

In the opinion of Mallory North, Laser Graphics, which was our reproduction service for this meeting, did an outstanding job. Larry Rolison volunteered to buy them a potted plant and write them a very nice thank you letter.

18.4	Funding the WG5 Meeting

The ISO requires the host delegation to finance the expenses of the WG5 meeting. In most other countries, either the host country's government or corporate sponsors pay the costs. Both of these options are not available to us. Due to ANSI rules, we cannot use money in the X3J3 treasury to pay the cost of the WG5 meeting. We would like to keep the total cost for each member at $100.

Motion:	Waive the regular $100 meeting fee for Meeting 135 only; it goes back to $100 for subsequent meetings. Assess a $100 meeting fee for the WG5 meeting.

Moved:	Walt Brainerd	Second:	Larry Rolison

Action:	Passed by unanimous consent

18.5	Review of Action Items

1.	Kurt Hirchert	Check out whether the auto-unzip feature on the X3J3 server works yet.

2.	Craig Dedo	Send a copy of X3J3 and US TAG minutes to Jerrold Wagener for his review prior to sending them to the X3J3 Mailing List or to Kurt Hirchert for inclusion in the post-meeting mailing.

3.	Larry Rolison	Did the interpretations at the Tokyo WG5 meeting pass the WG5 ballot?

4.	Craig Dedo	Check with Ivor Philips to see whether he still has the list of publications that he sent information and press releases to.

18.6	Acknowledgments

1.	Thanks to Craig Dedo for serving as Acting Secretary.

2.	Thanks to Larry Rolison for bringing a printer and to Craig Dedo for bringing his entire computer system and printer.

3.	Thanks to Larry Rolison and Jeanne Adams for serving as meeting hosts.

4.	Thanks to Hank Lauson (who died recently) who gave so much to this committee.

5.	Thanks to the Babbage Museum of the University of New Mexico for accepting and preserving Hank Lauson's collection of X3J3 minutes, which go back to the 1960s.

18.7	Review of Upcoming Deadlines

September 5	End of Public Review of Fortran 95 Committee Draft

September 9	Ballot on Fortran 95 Committee Draft

October 6	Ballot on 8 Defect Items from Meeting 134

October 9	Meeting 135 Pre-Meeting Distribution (Hard Copy)

October 30	Meeting 135 Papers for Consideration (Electronic Copy)

18.8	Comments from Members

Walt Brainerd	What work should we farm out to JOR and other subgroups?

We still need a home page on the World Wide Web (WWW). I will be happy to do the work.

The meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.

Appendix A

Agenda for X3J3 Meeting 134

(as Originally Proposed)

Monday, August 21, 1995

8:30	Opening Business	J. Wagener

Meeting objectives and Chair's report	J. Wagener

Membership Report / Introductions	L. Rolison

Adopting Agenda	J. Wagener

Approving Meeting 133 Minutes	L. O'Gara

Review Meeting 133 Action Items	L. O'Gara

Treasurer's Report	M. North

X3/OMC report	J. Wagener

ISO/WG5 report	K. Hirchert

Comments from members

Local Arrangements

11:00	Fortran 95 CD ballot comment processing organization	J. Wagener

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Tech Report Type 2 group organization	J. Wagener

2:00	Conditional compilation presentation	D. Epstein

3:00	Interpretation processing organization	J. Shepherd

3:30	Ballot comment subgroups and/or interp subgroups

Tuesday, August 22, 1995

8:30	Ballot comment subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

9:00	Tech Report subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

9:30	Interp subgroup report and processing	J. Shepherd

10:00	Miscellaneous Items (time permitting)

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Meetings

Wednesday, August 23, 1995

8:30	Interp subgroup report and processing	J. Shepherd

9:00	Ballot comment subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

10:00	Tech Report subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

Subgroup Meetings (time permitting)

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Meetings

4:00	TAG: preparing for November WG5 meeting

Thursday, August 24, 1995

8:30	Tech Report subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

9:30	Interp subgroup report and processing	J. Shepherd

10:30	Ballot comment subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

Subgroup Meetings (time permitting)

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Meetings

4:00	TAG: U.S. vote on Fortran 95 CD

Friday, August 25, 1995

8:30	Ballot comment subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

9:30	Tech Report subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

10:30	Interp subgroup report and processing	J. Shepherd

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Reports and Processing	Subgroup heads

4:00	Closing Business	J. Wagener

Membership Report	L. Rolison

Future Meetings	L. Rolison

Treasurer's Report	M. North

Next Meeting Agenda	L. Rolison

Review of Action Items	L. O'Gara

Comments from Members

5:00	Adjournment

Agenda for X3J3 Meeting 134

(as Adopted)

Monday, August 21, 1995

8:30	Opening Business	J. Wagener

Meeting objectives and Chair's report	J. Wagener

Membership Report / Introductions	L. Rolison

Adopting Agenda	J. Wagener

Approving Meeting 133 Minutes	L. O'Gara

Review Meeting 133 Action Items	L. O'Gara

Treasurer's Report	M. North

X3/OMC report	J. Wagener

ISO/WG5 report	K. Hirchert

Comments from members

Local Arrangements

11:00	Subgroup Assignments	J. Wagener

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Conditional compilation presentation	D. Epstein

2:30	Subgroup organizational meetings

4:00	Subgroup reports and processing

Tuesday, August 22, 1995

8:30	Subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

10:00	Discussion on Fortran 2000 Requirements

Discussion on Interoperability

12:00	Lunch

4:00	Progress review

Wednesday, August 23, 1995

8:30	Subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Meetings

4:00	TAG: preparing for November WG5 meeting

Thursday, August 24, 1995

8:30	Subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Meetings

4:00	TAG: U.S. vote on Fortran 95 CD

Friday, August 25, 1995

8:30	Subgroup reports and processing	Subgroup heads

10:00	US TAG meeting

12:00	Lunch

1:30	Subgroup Reports and Processing	Subgroup heads

4:00	Closing Business	J. Wagener

Membership Report	L. Rolison

Future Meetings	L. Rolison

Treasurer's Report	M. North

Next Meeting Agenda	L. Rolison

Review of Action Items	L. O'Gara

Comments from Members

5:00	Adjournment

Appendix B

Committee Organization

B.1	Officers

Chair	J. Wagener

Vice Chair	L. Rolison

International Rep	Open

Secretary	Open

Treasurer	M. North

Librarian	M. North

Editor	R. Maine

Maintenance	J. Shepherd

Vocabulary Rep.	K. Hirchert

B.2	Subgroups

X3J3/Interp:	F90 defect management, responsible for document 006

R. Bleikamp, B. Lassaline, L. Rolison, J. Shepherd (head)

X3J3/JOR:	Journal of Requirements for 1995, responsible for document 004

J. Adams, W. Brainerd, C. Dedo, S. Whitlock (head)

X3J3/Edit:	prepare the draft standard, responsible for documents 007 and 008

K. Hirchert, H. Lauson, R. Maine (head), M. North

X3J3/Parallel:	parallel computing, responsible for coordinating with X3H5 and HPFF;

Exception Handling Technical Report

K. Bierman, R. Hendrickson (head), J. Himer, T. Terpstra

X3J3/OOF:	Object-Oriented Fortran - Data Enhancements Technical Report

D. Epstein, D. Levine (head), J. Martin

X3J3/Interop	Interoperability with other languages - Interop Technical Report

G. Barber, H. Zongaro

Appendix C

Future Meetings and Distribution Assignments

Meeting conventions:

- 4 meetings per year

- attempt to schedule second full week of month

- attempt to schedule meetings back to back with WG5 meetings

135 Nov. 13-17, 1995 - San Diego, CA (Terpstra, host)

Pre-meeting distribution deadline: October 9

Pre-meeting distribution: Levine, HP

Post-meeting distribution: North, Rose-Hulman

136 February 12-16, 1996 - Albuquerque, NM (Brainerd, tentative host)

Pre-meeting distribution deadline:

Pre-meeting distribution: Rolison, Cray Research

Post-meeting distribution: Shepherd, IBM

137 May 13-17, 1996 - Champaign-Urbana, IL (Hirchert, tentative host)

Pre-meeting distribution deadline:

Pre-meeting distribution: Smith, UNM

Post-meeting distribution: Terpstra, Princeton

138 August 12-16, 1996 -

Pre-meeting distribution deadline:

Pre-meeting distribution: Wagener, self

Post-meeting distribution: Warnock, LANL

Barber: European Based

Excused: Brainerd, Dedo, Epstein, Hendrickson, Himer, Martin

List for Distribution Recipients:

Agenda and meeting notice sent to:

Principals

Alternates

Observers, consultants, liaisons

WG5/ISO members

Interested parties that specifically request to be sent the material either via surface mail or email

REQUIREMENT: Distribution 4 Weeks prior to meeting (SD-2 4.3.3)

Pre and post meeting distribution sent to:

Principals

FEW additional others:

Alternates that wish to receive the material

Active participants, such as former members, that specifically ask to receive the material

REQUIREMENT: Distribution of Pre-Meeting 2 Weeks before meeting

(documents for action - two week rule: SD-2 4.3.4:1)

Minutes sent to (required by X3):

Principals

Alternates

Observers, consultants, liaisons

REQUIREMENT: Distribution 4 Weeks Following Meeting Adjournment (SD-2 4.2.5, 4.3.6)

Appendix D

Membership Summary

Meeting #	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34

Location	IN	WA	CT	FL	IL	BE	NM	CA	NV	ED	MA	TX	HI	CO

Date	05	08	11	02	05	07	11	02	05	08	11	01	04	08

92	92	92	93	93	93	93	94	94	94	94	95	95	95

Name	Affiliation

Barber, Graham	Edinburgh	A	I	I	A	A**	I**	I	A	I	V	V	A	V	A**

Bierman, Keith	Sun	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V

Bleikamp, Rich	CONVEX	R	V	V	V	V	A	V	A**	V	A**	V	V	A	V

Brainerd, Walt	Unicomp	V	V	V	A	A**	R**	V	R	V	R	A	V	R	V

Dedo, Craig	P	V	V	A	V	V	V	V

Epstein, David	P	V	V

Hendrickson, Dick	V**	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	A	V	A**	V

Himer, Jim	Esso Canada	V	A	V	A**	V	A**	V	A**	V	A**	V	A**	V	A**

Hirchert, Kurt	Univ. Illinois	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V

Lassaline, William	Lahey	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	A	I	A**	V	A**

Levine, David	HP	I	I	I	I	I	I	V	V	V	A	V	V	A	V

Martin, Jeanne	Livermore	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V

Maine, Richard	NASA	V	V	V	A	V	V	A	V	V	A	V	V	V	V

North, Mallory	Rose-Hulman Inst	V	V	V	V	V	A	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V

O'Gara, Linda	Microsoft	I	I	A	I	I	A	V	V	A	V	V	A	V	A**

Rolison, Larry	Cray Research*	R	R	R	R	V	V	V	V	V	R	V	V	V	V

Shepherd, Janice	IBM*	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	V	V	V	V	V	R	V

Smith, Brian	UNM	R	R	R	A	R	A**	R	R	R	A	R	R	V	A

Terpstra, Ted	Princeton	A	I	V	V	V	A	V	V	V	A	V	E	V	V

Wagener, Jerry	Amoco	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V

Warnock, Tony	LANL	P	V	A	V

Whitlock, Stan	DEC	V	A	V	V	V	A	V	V	V	A	V	V	V	V

V present and voting

R absent but represented

A absent and not represented

P present but not voting

I institution represented

E excused

Q resigned

* institutional member

** missed 2 of last 3 meetings

*** LOST membership

Total Membership at beginning of Meeting: 23

One over Half: 12

Quorum: 8

Total Membership at end of Meeting: 22

Total Members Attended or Represented: 17

Total Attendees: 18

Changes since Meeting 133

Lost Members:

Jules George

New Members:

(none)

Alternates Representing principals at meeting:

(none)

Non-Voting Alternates at Meeting:

Jeanne Adams

Prospective Members (Observer Meeting)

(none)

Appendix E

X3J3 Membership

PRINCIPAL MEMBERS

Graham Barber

Edinburgh Portable Compilers, Ltd.

17 Alva Street

Edinburgh EH2 4PH

SCOTLAND

Phone: 44 31 225 6262

Email: gra@epc.ed.ac.uk

-------------------

Keith H. Bierman

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

SunSoft Developer Products

2550 Garcia

UMPK16-304

Mountain View CA 95125

Phone: (415) 786-9296

Email: keith.bierman@sun.com

-------------------

Richard Bleikamp

CONVEX Computer Corporation

3000 Waterview Parkway

P. O. Box 833851

Richardson TX 75083-3851

Phone: (214) 497-4133

Email: bleikamp@convex.com

-------------------

Walter S. Brainerd

Unicomp Inc.

1874 San Bernardino Ave NE

Albuquerque NM 87122

Phone: (505) 275-0800

Email: walt@fortran.com

-------------------

Craig T. Dedo

17130 W. Burleigh Place

Brookfield WI 53005

Phone: (414) 783-5869

Email: Craig.Dedo@mixcom.com

-------------------

David Epstein

Imagine1

P.O. Box 250

Sweet Home OR 97386

Phone: (503) 383-4846

Email: david@imagine1.com

-------------------

Richard A. Hendrickson

50 Melbourne Ave SE

Minneapolis MN 55414

Phone: (612) 378-9694

Email: rah@vz.cis.umn.edu

-------------------

James T. Himer

339 Woodside Bay S.W.

Calgary Alberta T2W 3K9

CANADA

Phone: (403) 237-4215

Email: jthimer@iras.ucalgary.ca

-------------------

Kurt W. Hirchert

University of Illinois

152 Computing Applications Bldg.

605 East Springfield Avenue

Champaign IL 61820

Phone: (217) 333-8093

Email: hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu

-------------------

Bill Lassaline

Lahey Computer Systems Inc.

865 Tahoe Blvd

Suite 204

P. O. Box 6091

Incline Village NV 89450-6091

Phone: (702) 831-2500

Email: blass@lahey.com

-------------------

David R. Levine

Hewlett-Packard Company

MS CHR-02-DC

Massachusetts Language Lab.

300 Apollo Drive

Chelmsford MA 01824

Phone: (508) 436-4015

Email: drlevine@apollo.hp.com

-------------------

Richard Maine

NASA Dryden

M/S D-2033

P.O. Box 273

Edwards CA 93523

Phone: (805) 258-3316

Email: maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov

-------------------

Jeanne T. Martin

Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab.

7000 East Avenue

P. O. Box 808

L-300

Livermore CA 94550

Phone: (510) 422-3753

Email: jtm@llnl.gov

-------------------

C. Mallory North

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.

5500 Wabash Ave.

Campus Box 150

Terre Haute IN 47803

Phone: (812) 877-8216

Email: Charles.M.North@Rose-Hulman.Edu

-------------------

Jose Oglesby

Microsoft

One Microsoft Way

Redmond WA 98052

Phone: (206) 882-8080

Email: joseogl@microsoft.com

-------------------

Lawrence R. Rolison

Cray Research Inc.

655F Lone Oak Dr.

Eagan MN 55121

Phone: (612) 683-5807

Email: lrr@cray.com

-------------------

Janice Shepherd

IBM

P.O. Box 704

Yorktown Heights New York 10598

Phone: (914) 784-6313

Email: janshep@watson.ibm.com

-------------------

Brian T. Smith

University of New Mexico

Computer Science Dept.

339 Farris Engineering Center

Albuquerque NM 87131

Phone: (505) 277-5500

Email: smith@unmvax.cs.unm.edu

-------------------

Ted Terpstra

General Atomics

3550 General Atomics Ct.

San Diego CA 92121-1194

Phone: (619) 455-4188

Email: terpstra@gav.gat.com

-------------------

Jerrold L. Wagener

Amoco Tulsa Technology Center

4502 East 41st Street

P. O. Box 3385

Tulsa OK 74102

Phone: (918) 660-3978

Email: jwagener@amoco.com

-------------------

Tony Warnock

Los Alamos National Lab.

MS B265

CIC-3

P.O. Box 1663

Los Alamos NM 87545

Phone: (505) 667-2225

Email: ttw@lanl.gov

-------------------

Stan Whitlock

Digital Equipment Corp.

ZK02-3/N30

110 Spit Brook Rd.

Nashua NH 03062

Phone: (603) 881-2011

Email: whitlock@tle.enet.dec.com

ALTERNATES

-------------------

Jeanne C. Adams

NCAR

Scientific Computing Division

P.O. Box 3000

Boulder CO 80307

Phone: (303) 497-1275

Email: jeanne@ncar.ucar.edu

-------------------

Jerry Fine

Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

550 Wabash Ave.

Terre Haute IN 47803

Phone: (812) 877-1511

Email: fine@Rose-Hulman.edu

-------------------

Murray F. Freeman

FOSI Limited

P.O. Box 184

Paupack PA 18451-0184

Phone: (717) 857-0658

Email: x3t2mf@delphi.com

-------------------

Michael Ingrassia

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

SunSoft Developer Products

2550 Garcia

UMTV 12-40

Mountain View CA 94043

Phone: (415) 336-1024

Email: michael.ingrassia@sun.com

-------------------

Keith Kimball

Digital Equipment Corp.

ZK02-3/N30

110 Spit Brook Road

Nashua NH 03062

Phone: (603) 881-0120

Email: kimball@tle.enet.dec.com

-------------------

Tom Lahey

Lahey Computer Systems Inc.

865 Tahoe Blvd

Suite 204

P. O. Box 6091

Incline Village NV 89450-6091

Phone: (702) 831-2500

Email: tlahe@lahey.com

-------------------

Bruce A. Martin

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

Build 911-C

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Upton NY 11973

Phone: (516) 282-5647

Email: bam@bnl.gov

-------------------

G. E. Millard

Edinburgh Portable Compilers, Ltd.

17 Alva Street

Edinburgh EH2 4PH

SCOTLAND

Phone: 011 44 31 225 6262

Email: geoff@epc.ed.ac.uk

-------------------

Linda O'Gara

Microsoft

One Microsoft Way

Redmond WA 98052

Phone: (206) 936-6575

Email: lindaog@microsoft.com

-------------------

Rex L. Page

School of Computer Science

University of Oklahoma

200 Felgar Street - Room 114

Norman OK 73109

Phone: (405) 325-4397

Email: rlpage@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu

-------------------

Charles Ritz

Fortran Journal

P.O. Box 4201

Fullerton CA 92634

Phone: (714) 441-2022

Email:

-------------------

Presley Smith

CONVEX Computer Corporation

3000 Waterview Parkway

P. O. Box 833851

Richardson TX 75083-3851

Phone: (214) 497-4545

Email: psmith@convex.com

-------------------

Jon Steidel

Cray Research Inc.

655F Lone Oak Dr.

Eagan MN 55121

Phone: (612) 683-5734

Email: jls@cray.com

-------------------

Henry Zongaro

IBM Canada Ltd.

3T/123/1150/TOR

1150 Eglinton Avenue East

North York Ontario M3C 1H7

CANADA

Phone: (416) 448-6044

Email: zongaro@vnet.ibm.com

OBSERVER/LIAISON

-------------------

Ingemar Dahlstrand

DNA/LTH

Box 118

S-22100 Lund

SWEDEN

Phone:

Email: ingo@dna.lth.se

-------------------

L. M. Delves

N.A. Software Ltd.

Roscoe House

62 Roscoe Street

Liverpool L1 9DW

ENGLAND

Phone:

Email:

-------------------

John Hill

Unisys Corp

M/S E8-134

P.O. Box 500

Blue Bell PA 19424-0001

Phone: (215) 986-4565

Email: jhill@corp.bb.unisys.com

-------------------

Kalman Janko

CSENGERY 59 - 11 117

Budapest 1067

HUNGARY

Phone:

Email:

-------------------

Rochelle Lauer

Director

Yale University High Energy Computing Facility

512 Gibbs Physics Laboratory

260 Whitney Avenue

P. O. Box 6666

New Haven CT 06511-8167

Phone: (203) 432-3366

Email: lauer@yalehep

-------------------

Hiroshi Matsuo

Software Works

Hitachi Ltd.

5030 Totsuka-cho Totsuka-ku

Yokohama-shi 244

JAPAN

Phone: 011 81 45 824-2311

Email:

-------------------

Meinolf Munchhausen

D ST SP314

Seimens Ag

D-8000 Munchen 83

GERMANY

Phone:

Email:

-------------------

David T. Muxworthy

EUCS

University Library

George Square

Edinburgh EH8 9LJ

SCOTLAND

Phone: 011 44 31 650 3305

Email: d.t.muxworthy@edinburgh.ac.uk

-------------------

K. H. Rotthauser

GMD

Schloss Birlinghoven

D-5205 St. Augustin 1

GERMANY

Phone:

Email:

-------------------

Lindsey Savage

University of Manchester

Manchester Computer Centre

Oxford Road Computer Building

Manchester M13 9PL

UNITED KINGDOM

Phone: 061 273 7121

Email:

-------------------

Hideo Wada

Software Division

Fujitsu Limited

140 Miyamoto

Numazu-shi Shizuoka 410-03

JAPAN

Phone: (0559) 23-2222

Email: wada@lp.nm.fujitsu.co.jp

-------------------

Graham Warren

Dept. 31/123/844/TOR

IBM Canada

844 Don Mills Road

Don Mills Ontario M3C 1W3

CANADA

Phone:

Email:

-------------------

OMC Secretary

Information Industries Technology Council (ITIC)

Suite 200

1250 Eye Street NW

Washington D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 737-8888

Email: