Subject: group 1 meeting

From: [email-masked] (Mary E Zosel)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 09:26:38 -0700

Group 1
There has been a suggestion put forward that we make a serios try to
do our work via email for the next meeting.  There is no ideal match
for everyone for a meeting the week of May 11 (perhaps Monday the 11th)
was the best fit - but not ideal.)  I propose we work with email - and
if that is failing - we will convene as many people as possible
sometime during the week of May 26 to guarentee that we are prepared
for the next meeting.

David Loveman will be working on a proposal for the array language - to
be presented at the June meeting.

Everyone is supposed to be working on user feedback about how liberal
or conservative we should be about common-block storage assosiation
rules.

Rick Swift would like to continue developing the formal proposal for
storage/sequence association - stated in an incremental fashion so
the full committee can rule on Andy and Ken's more flexible interpretations.

It would be good to have someone research in more detail and prepare
a written statement about what the difficulties with CHARACTER are.
I believe this would be helpful to the full committee in deciding
whether or not to exclude the data type from the subset / directives.
Is there a volunteer?

Barry's pointer paper is also up for discussion - we referred it to
the distribution subgroup - but should make sure it doesn't get lost.

There was also the question of getting info from X3J3 about why the
forall and nested where, etc. were dropped from F90.  These are actually
issues for group 4, but we might help.

----
Comments please on the proposal to work via email.

Also additions to our work list?  And any volunteers?

Discussion on other f90 related issues also always welcome.

   -mary-