Hi,
It's very simple. We've not started discussing the procedures yet. So I cannot give any definitive answer. But in the past the committees have always welcomed suggestions from the public, and have frequently solicited them, so I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to submit a proposal.
In the past the submissions have generally been via the national standards bodies (e.g. BSI (UK), JIS (Japan), INCITS (USA)), though to my knowledge both the UK and USA Fortran committees have considered items submitted by others. And this part of the procedure could well be different this time around, so who knows.
Cheers,
--
..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fortran 90 List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vipul Parekh
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 5:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMP-FORTRAN-90] LITERAL_KINDS, a statement that can help enhance working with literal constants in Fortran?
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Malcolm Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is a bit similar to a proposal made by the UK group for controlling what "default" kinds should be during Fortran 2015 development. ..
>
> The reason for handling type declarations as well as literals was to handle situations that are currently dealt with (somewhat awkwardly, and non-standardly) by compiler options like "-r8".
>
> I think this is an important issue and is worth looking at again in the future.
>
> ..
It's highly encouraging to read the above words, hopefully this will get discussed in depth during the development of Fortran 202X.
The use cases I have in mind are borne out of needs with generic programming for various compute libraries and I feel there is a need for more fine-grained control of the kinds of literal constants at the level of a scoping unit. My files - modules and submodules - span many a scoping unit, so if a standard facility is introduced that works similar to "-r8", "-i8", etc. compiler options for default kinds of intrinsic types with a wider scope (e.g., entire file unit as is the case with compilers today), then it will likely not cover my use cases.
Hence when the time is "right" - year 2018, 2020, 2025, 2030, whenever
- for the committee to consider such an aspect, is there a way for the committee to be reminded about this thread with the LITERAL_KINDS statement and if there is interest, I can provide further details to the level of a proposal? If there is a place where I can post a request for inclusion, say, on a list of items to be considered, it will be very helpful for me to know.
Thanks,
Vipul
|