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 AAgenda for X3J3 Meeting 134. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix BCommittee Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix CFuture Meetings and Distribution Assignments . . . . 22 Appendix DMembership Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix EX3J3 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: